Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Montion
Result of Motion and, if a Division Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chairman
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division Numbers for and against.


—[The First Deputy Chairman of ways and Means.

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1971–72:
Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1971–72 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9

Return ordered,
Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1971–72.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 30)

Return ordered,
Return respecting application of Standing Order No. 30 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1971–72 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—
number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Order which, in Session 1971–72, were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional


Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1971–72, showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation or Dissolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Return ordered,
Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1971–72 with the total number of signatures in that Session. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
Return of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1971–72 with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each: the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,
Return of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1971–72, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of

the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered,—[The First Deputy Chairman of ways and Means,]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
Return for Session 1971–72, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing. with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by a Committee distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate and Matter, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,
Return of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1971–72; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders;
Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1971–72, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the numbers of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Basle Agreements

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions with Commonwealth countries on the status of the Basle Agreements.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): The present Sterling Agreements remain in force until September, 1973. Informal consultations have been held with the Governments concerned about the implications of recent United Kingdom measures for the operation of the agreements.

Dr. Gilbert: Have any of the parties to the agreements let the sterling proportion of their reserves fall in the last 12 months below the minimum agreed? Are the United Kingdom guarantees under the reserves activated only when a new parity is set for the £, or can they come into force if the £ floats far below the level of 2 dollars and 40 cents? If it is the case that it needs a new parity, how low can the parity be set without the guarantees being called into force? Finally, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would be the cost to the reserves of every point below 2 dollars and 40 cents at which the parity would be set if the guarantees were brought into force?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that all the points he raised are of a confidential nature. But there has been no occasion for implementing the guarantees.

Unemployment

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he proposes to take to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Barber: The reflationary measures which I have taken are already making a significant and welcome impact on the level of unemployment.

Mr. Ashley: Should not the welcome for the fall in unemployment be seen in

perspective against the sombre background of over 800,000 unemployed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a massive boost to industrial training schemes so that men out of work can be helped to cope with the increasingly complex new processes?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced to the House on 8th August proposals for the extensive modernisation of industrial retraining which involves spending from £70 million to £80 million a year on the expanded training opportunity scheme and from £25 million to £40 million over and above what is raised in levies on selective grants and other forms of retraining.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that among the disabled nationally there is 15 per cent. unemployment? Is he aware that in an area like the North-East, where there is already a higher-than-average level of unemployment, the disabled suffer even more? Will he take steps to increase the employment level among disabled people?

Mr. Barber: It has always been the case that in areas where there is greater-than-average unemployment the problems of the disabled are also greater. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have this very much in mind.

Mr. Redmond: What reliance does my right hon. Friend place on the accuracy of the present unemployment statistics issued by the Department of Employment? Does he not agree that there are places where the figures grossly overstate the position and places where they grossly understate it, with the result that the total figures are completely misleading and may be leading my right hon. Friend into wrong policies?

Mr. Barber: I do not think the total figures are grossly misleading, but when considering the actual figures in relation to policies to be pursued, one has to take into account the breakdown of the figures and what they truly represent.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the goods


and services it is proposed should be exempted from the general rate of the value added tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): My hon. Friend will find the list in Schedule 5 to the Finance Act, 1972.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main aims of the new tax, replacing, as it does, selective employment tax and purchase tax, has been successful—namely, that its base and incidence should be as widespread as possible to keep its rate as low as possible? If he feels that that aim has indeed been achieved, would he be prepared to commit the Treasury to a review, at the earliest possible opportunity, of the perhaps inevitable but nevertheless irritating anomalies and unfairnesses which have been created, such as in the case of children's clothing, uncut flowers and the design professions in the construction industry?

Mr. Higgins: I agree with the first half of what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot accept what he said about anomalies. All these matters were debated at considerable length during our debates on this year's Finance Bill, and it would be premature for me to say anything more at this stage.

Mr. Dalyell: Why is the Committee on Value Added Tax on Children's Shoes taking so long to report?

Mr. Higgins: It is not fair to the Committee to say that it is taking a long time. It is doing a thorough job. As my right hon. Friend made clear in appointing the committee, it was his intention that it should report in time for its views to be taken into account before next year's Budget. There is a Question on the Order Paper later, and I do not wish to say more on the subject now.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those items which the Child Poverty Action Group asked him to relieve from value added tax and which he has decided to relieve.

Mr. Higgins: The Child Poverty Action Group asked last February that food, other than items at present liable to purchase tax, houses and rents, fuel, foot-

wear, clothing, transport and vehicles, health services, education, newspapers, books and periodicals should be relieved from value added tax or that in some cases the rate should be reduced. All these except vehicles, footwear and clothing have been relieved by zero-rating or exemption.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my hon. Friend satisfied in general that the introduction of VAT will not materially affect the ability of charities to continue to raise money and thereby to carry out their good work?

Mr. Higgins: The question of charities was debated at considerable length in the proceedings on the Finance Bill. The House will be aware of those debates and the announcements made by my right hon. Friend at that time. We have received further representations from charities which will be carefully considered.

Standard of Living

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the standard of living on the basis of real disposable income per head between the fourth quarter of 1964 and the second quarter of 1970, and between the second quarter of 1970 and the latest available quarter.

Mr. Barber: Between the fourth quarter of 1964 and the second quarter of 1970 the standard of living on the basis of real personal disposable income per head rose by 8 per cent. or at an average annual rate of l½ per cent. Between the second quarter of 1970 and the second quarter of 1972 the standard of living on the same basis rose by 10 per cent. or at an average annual rate of 5 per cent.

Mr. Dixon: Is it not remarkable that in two years of Conservative Government the standard of living has increased more rapidly than in the whole 5½ years of Labour Government, and that the rate of increase on an annual basis is over three times as fast under the Conservative Government as it was under the Labour Government?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is a tribute to the policies we have been pursuing.

Mr. Sheldon: When congratulating himself on a performance in which we have had the highest rate of inflation in peacetime this century, will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us the difference between the balance of payments inherited by the Conservative Government and that which the Labour Government inherited?

Mr. Barber: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that despite the problems we faced last June, when it was decided to float the £ temporarily, at the present time our reserves are twice as high as they were when we took over from the last Government. Since we have been in office we have repaid the whole of the short and medium-term official debt which we inherited.

Mr. Marten: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a 5 per cent. growth rate and a 5 per cent. increase in the standard of living without going into the Common Market?

Mr. Barber: I take the point but, of course, one of the objects of joining the EEC is that we shall do even better.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger that giving these average figures masks the fact that a considerable number of our people are still living below the poverty line and that this is one of the dangers of this kind of question and answer? Whereas many of the stronger people in our economic society have increased their real earnings, a substantial proportion of the community still suffers from very low earnings.

Mr. Barber: The position is that the proportion of people living on very low earnings is, I believe, decreasing, and in particular, if one goes beyond earnings and looks at the index generally, one sees that certainly one section of the community during the past two years has been doing very much better than during the previous five years in real terms—and that is the pensioners.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Higgins: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in mid-June 1970, its value in mid-September, 1972, the latest date available, is estimated at 84p on the basis of the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this time last year, when I was putting similar Questions, I was told that things were going to pick up in the next 12 months? What has happened? Since then the figures show that 2½ years of Tory economic policy and pure competition have resulted in the worst inflation we have ever experienced in this country? May we take it that laissez-faire economics is well and truly buried?

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in the first part of his supplementary question. It is important to take into account the increase in the real standard of living achieved, a point which my right hon. Friend has just made. The hon. Gentleman referred to last year's Questions. If he looks at the figures for September last year, he will see that the increase in the index of retail prices was 10 per cent. whereas in September this year it was 7 per cent., representing a very considerable improvement.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Lanarkshire we have a deep depression and large-scale unemployment? Is he aware that the people there are sadly disillusioned with the Prime Minister's statement that he would reduce prices at a stroke, so disillusioned that there is no doubt that when we have a General Election they will once again return a Labour Government?

Mr. Higgins: What we have undoubtedly achieved is a marked reduction in the rate of inflation. What we now have to do is to build upon that and to get back to a solution which could lead to a major contribution to our welfare in future, and with that in view the tripartite talks are of great importance.

Money Supply

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of increase in money supply (M3) in the latest period of three months for which figures are available;


and whether the rate of increase since his Budget statement has been in conformity with the policy therein outlined.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The annual rate of increase in the wide definition of money stock (M3) in the three months to mid-September was about 22 per cent., and the rise in the narrow definition (M1) was 4 per cent.—again at an annual rate. These rates of growth are slower than in the earlier part of the financial year when, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 29th June, the growth of money and credit was faster than appropriate to our objectives for the growth of the economy. This slowing down reflects the steps we have taken to moderate the rate of growth of money supply.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is indeed welcome that there should have been some slowing down, but does not my hon. Friend agree that the rate of increase in the money stock is still horrific? Furthermore, would he care to comment on the remark of the Governor of the Bank of England last week that there was no monetary policy which would at the same time stimulate growth and restrain inflation? Would he tell the House to which direction our monetary policy now inclines?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has made it abundantly clear on many occasions in the House and elsewhere that his stance on money supply has been to make sure that in no sense would there be any restriction on the rate of growth of the economy through any tightening of the money supply. At the same time, he has made it equally clear that if the money supply is allowed to increase too fast, that could lead to inflationary pressures. When I tell my hon. Friend that the M3 figures in the three months April to June showed a rate of increase of 8 per cent., whereas in the three months to September it was only 5 per cent., he will agree that we can say that we have made considerable progress.

Sir Robin Turton: Is not my hon Friend also concerned with the figures for the increase in personal liquidity, now standing at more than £33,000 million, more than the national income and in

effect having the inflationary tendency to raise prices, particularly of land?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that it is now recognised that the rate of increase in the money supply in the early part of the year undoubtedly had an effect on the increase in the value of land and houses. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recollect the directive given to the banks by the Governor at the beginning of August saying that they should exercise restraint in that form of lending.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest balance of payments situation.

Mr. Higgins: The latest period for which we have full balance of payments figures is the first six months of this year, when there was a current account surplus of some £135 million. In the third quarter the visible trade figures were heavily distorted by the effects of the dock strike. We continue to earn a substantial surplus on invisible account.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the Financial Secretary care to comment on the somewhat cryptic statement in the summit communiqué that perhaps national currencies would no longer be used as instruments of economic reserve?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that that arises from this Question.

Mr. Jay: Have Treasury Ministers noticed that the prospect of joining the EEC has led so far this year to a further fall in industrial investment and persistent weakness in that area?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that that arises on this Question.

Dr. Gilbert: Is it still the Government's view that the underlying balance of payments situation justifies a rate of 2·60 dollars to the £, as was apparently the Chancellor's view last summer when he said that we were forced off that parity only by speculative movements?

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has made our position on the floating of the £ very clear and I do not wish to add to what he said.

Taxation (Percentage of Revenue)

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the percentages of the revenue taken in direct taxation and indirect taxation in the year 1971–72; and how the figures compare with those in the year 1969–70.

Mr. Higgins: The shares of central Government's total current receipts taken by direct and indirect taxation respectively were 42·4 and 34·3 per cent. in 1971–72 compared with 40·9 and 38·0 in 1969·70.

Mr. Knox: As indirect taxation is normally considered to hit the poorer harder than the richer members of society, would not my hon. Friend agree that there has been a change in the incidence of taxation from the rich in favour of the less well-to-do since the Government took office?

Mr. Higgins: Certainly in cutting both forms of taxation my right hon. Friend has had in mind the effects that taxation can have on broader issues, as my hon. Friend suggested. It is for that reason, particularly because of prices, that we have put so much emphasis on the cuts in indirect taxation.

Mr. Ashton: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the figures for next year when value added tax is introduced?

Mr. Higgins: The available information has been clearly stated both in the Red Book and in statements made during the Budget debates.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Despite the surprise with which his hon. Friend's statement was heard, will the Financial Secretary confirm that over the two periods the amount of tax collected rose by more than £1,600 million and that this in itself is evidence of the considerable degree of inflation over which the Chancellor has presided? Will he confirm that if he wants to reduce taxation even more, he could preside over an even faster rate and transfer even more to prices and charges? Does the Chancellor intend to continue with these policies, which are undermining his desire to get agreement with the TUC? In the circumstances, will he at least confirm that he will not proceed with the £300 million tax hand-

out due to be given to the higher income groups next April?

Mr. Higgins: The fact is that we have made substantial reductions in both direct and indirect taxation. The true indicator, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, although he did not say so, is the figure for the overall level of taxation as a percentage of the gross domestic product. In 1969–70 that was 34·5 per cent. and in 1971–72 it was 31·8 per cent. A further significant reduction may be expected this year.

Development Areas (Government Contracts)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of both the general scheme and special scheme for giving preference for Government contracts to companies located in development areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes. Despite the limits on what such schemes can achieve they contributed to the £174 million of orders from Government Departments which went to the development areas in 1971–72.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that the total of contracts given under these schemes by Government Departments to firms located in development areas represents less than 10 per cent. of all contracts? Is he further aware of the disappointment of firms located in development areas with the statistics? Would he not agree that the scheme needs to be reviewed if it is to he made more meaningful?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that the 10 per cent figure may be a little out of date. For 1971–72, contracts made in development areas were 12·5 per cent. My hon. Friend must recognise the limits of the scheme in that many of the goods that the Government and the nationalised industries require simply are not made in the development areas. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not suggest that the Government and the nationalised industries should buy products that they do not need.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Chief Secretary aware that Honeywell, a computer organisation in my constituency, is


often not allowed to tender for computer contracts with Government agencies and that ICL, without negotiating and without submitting tenders, is getting contracts? Is he further aware that 5,500 people from Honeywell in my constituency are out of work? Will Honeywell be given an equal opportunity with IBM to tender for contracts, especially as mine is a special development area?

Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, questions concerning particular products should be addressed to the Ministers concerned, and in this case it will be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Shore: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that these schemes will still be possible after 1st January, 1973, and that they will not be outwith our obligations to the Common Market?

Mr. Jenkin: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Common Market regulations are not in force and do not apply to us at present. It is only in respect of contracts as opposed to supplies that the directives have been made effective. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the schemes that would conflict with that.

Indirect Taxation

Mrs. Fenner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions indirect taxation was increased between October, 1964, and June, 1970; and on how many occasions it has been increased since June, 1970.

Mr. Barber: Indirect taxation was increased six times between October, 1964, and June, 1970. Since then it has been reduced three times—including the halving of SET, and the largest-ever cuts in purchase tax.

Mrs. Fenner: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I trust is a habit-forming condition. In the light of the misunderstanding which appears to occur among members of Her Majesty's Opposition, is he satisfied that the introduction of VAT next year is no reason to suppose that this trend will not continue?

Mr. Barber: I certainly hope that the present Conservative Government, just as other Conservative Governments, will continue to be a Government cutting taxa-

tion, in marked contra-distinction to the policy pursued by the Labour Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we have any more self-congratulation, may we have the unemployment figures for the same period?

Mr. Barber: Unemployment has been going down considerably over the last few months, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the figures.

Mr. Brian Walden: Will the Chancellor explain something that has been puzzling me? As it has become clear by this time that there have been massive cuts in indirect and direct taxation, and there has been a sharp rise in real income, why is it that the Government are now receiving more money through both direct and indirect taxation than any Government in our history? Why, as has become clear from previous answers, only by prodigious efforts and brilliant statecraft might it be possible to get the level of inflation, the level of the growth in the money supply and the balance of payments back to the same conditions as existed under the Labour Government?

Mr. Barber: I shall he happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the matter fairly and objectively, I think he will agree with me that what matters is the proportion of the gross domestic product that is taken by taxation—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—I have been asked to answer the question and I will do so; I will deal with the latter part of that question, too. Taking taxation as a proportion of the GDP, under Labour it rose from 25 per cent. in 1964 to 35 per cent. in 1970, while we have been successful in reversing that trend so that in our first two years the proportion has fallen to 32 per cent., and I expect a further substantial reduction this year.

Reserves

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of the official gold and foreign currency reserves; and how this compares with the level in June, 1970.

Mr. Higgins: Converted at par, the reserves stood at £2,337 million at end-September this year compared with £1,163 million at end-June, 1970.

Mr. Lamont: While congratulating the Government on these figures, may I urge them not to fritter away the hard-earned reserves by returning to a fixed parity? Will they instead allow the £ to find its own level for as long as possible?

Mr. Higgins: I could not agree with my hon. Friend there. My right hon. Friend has made clear what our intentions are with regard to the question of floating and fixed parities.

Mr. Sheldon: Before the hon. Gentleman accepts these congratulations too wholeheartedly, will he accept that it was only the floating of the £, which came about as a result of the massive outflow of funds, which prevented the gold and dollar reserves from falling catastrophically? Does he agree that it was only the effective devaluation of the £ which brought this money, of which he is now boasting, back to this country?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen should confuse the fact that we are floating with the question of the rate. The fact is that we did take rapid action in the light of currency flows, in marked contrast with hon. Gentlemen opposite who did not do so, with disastrous results on our reserves.

Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Body: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the current growth in the gross domestic product.

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of gross domestic product.

Mr. Higgins: The indications are that the economy is growing at the rate forecast in the Budget, namely 5 per cent. a year over the period referred to in the Budget Statement.

Mr. Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter for more self-congratulation? Ought not he and his right hon. Friend to go about the country boasting that we are now exceeding the growth rate even of France and therefore of all the countries of the Six—or might that boast be a slight contradiction of what we heard 12 months ago?

Mr. Higgins: It is true that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I go about

the country, not boasting, but giving an objective appraisal of what we have achieved. It is also true to say that my right hon. Friend and my Treasury colleagues point out that we are determined to achieve the rate of growth mentioned and that we believe that the prospects in the European Community will give us great opportunities in future.

Mr. Knox: While recognising the great improvement in the rate of growth under this Government compared with the Labour Government, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will consider a further reflationary package to increase the rate of growth to 6 per cent.?

Mr. Higgins: It is worth stressing that between 1964 and 1970 the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 2·2 per cent. and that the economy is now growing at more than twice this rate, due in some considerable measure to the very large reductions in taxation which my right hon. Friend has brought about. As to the point of a 6 per cent. growth rate, the Budget forecast allowed for growth at 6 per cent. between the first half of this year and the first half of next year because it was realised that the coal strike would depress output in the first half of this year.

Mr. Joel Barnett: In the midst of the welter of congratulations which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are receiving, would he care to explain why there is the need for these crisis conferences with the CBI and the TUC? Is he prepared to scrap them now that everything is going so well?

Mr. Higgins: I have made it clear that I do not believe that it is right to be complacent. Certainly, having taken steps to bring down the rate of inflation created by the previous Government's irresponsibility, we believe it is now right that we should hold discussions on a tripartite basis to find a solution to these problems which will be long-lasting and will continue under not only this Government but the Conservative Government after the next election, too.

National Savings

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net increase in National Savings in the most recent annual period for which


figures are available; and what were the comparable increases or decreases in the same period three, five and seven years previously.

Mr. Higgins: In the 12 months to the end of September, 1972, the amount invested in National Savings increased by £928 million. This compared with a decrease of £30 million in 1968–69, an increase of £110 million in 1966–67, and an increase of £150 million 1964–65.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures are quite outstanding and encouraging? Does he further agree that to give a further boost to National Savings and to protect the funds invested he should give serious consideration to introducing a savings certificate or savings bond, the repayment terms of which were linked to the cost of living?

Mr. Higgins: That would normally be a budgetary matter. I have noted my hon. Friends suggestion. It might be helpful to spell out the sequence of figures, not in the order my hon. Friend asked but as they actually happened, from 1964 to 1972. The figures then run: plus £150 million; plus £110 million; minus £30 million up to the end of the period of office of the last Government; and then plus £928 million, which is the latest figure. This reflects substantially the efforts which the Government have already made to increase savings. I do not think that there is a case at this stage for introducing the particular kind of savings certificate my hon. Friend suggests. As to the measures taken by the Government—

Mr. William Hamilton: You have read enough.

Mr. Higgins: —we have taken steps to increase both consumer expenditure and savings.

Mr. Skinner: Have these savings done any good or have they all gone into land speculation?

Mr. Higgins: I believe that these savings, which have gone into National Savings, have done a great deal of good in helping to achieve a high level of investment.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the Government's desire to increase all small savings,

will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the possibility of exempting from income tax the small savings of ordinary working people who put their money into co-operative societies, to the extent of £20, as is done elsewhere?

Mr. Higgins: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not think that in present circumstances and in the situation I have described it would be appropriate to do more because the performance is an extremely fine one of which the National Savings movement is rightly proud.

Taxpayers (Earned Income)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of persons paying tax on earned income at the most recent available date and two years earlier.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The latest year for which figures are available is 1969–70, when about 24 million persons with earned income paid tax. The figures for the two preceding years were about 23½ million and 24 million respectively.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not clear that many of those who were taken out of the tax net not long ago will be paving income tax again by the end of the year? In view of this, if the Government's claims are to be justified and the congratulations being given to them are to be deserved, is not early action required, if not merely to create further justice then at least to prevent further over-burdening of the staff of the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Jenkin: Is it the proportion of incomes that is taken in tax that matters, and certainly if we had not made the substantial reductions we have made, reversing the trend of the previous six years, the figure would be much higher. What the hon. Gentleman says is to some extent true, but this is the effect of rising incomes in an inflationary period. This underlines the importance of the Government's campaign against wage-related inflation and of the discussions at present going on at Chequers.

Mr. Brian Walden: Before it gets into all the economic textbooks that the thing which really matters is the proportion of income taken in tax, may I ask the hon.


Member to confirm that the important thing is what one defines as a tax? Would he further agree that for the ordinary man what matters are the unavoidable charges on his income, which have not decreased under this Government but have increased?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's party ever bothered about the proportion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that rents, food bills, fares and all these things are to be regarded as taxes. We take a different view.

Strikers' Families (Social Security Benefits)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has assessed the indirect effects upon the cost of living of the payment of normal social security benefits for strikers' families.

Mr. Higgins: These cannot be quantified.

Mr. Jessel: Would my hon. Friend not agree that possibly one of the side effects of these payments is to make it easier for strikers to insist on wage settlements which may be inflationary? Is this not of considerable importance for the economy and is it impossible to make an estimate?

Mr. Higgins: I do not believe that it would be possible to quantify these effects. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is widespread public concern about these payments. As he knows, the Secretary of State for Social Services is studying this question, but it is not an easy one.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the campaign which is being run by some of his hon. Friends succeeds, it will undermine the new approach of conciliation which has been undertaken by the Prime Minister? As the package deal is now in danger of sinking because it does not include profits, dividends and capital gains, will the hon. Gentleman warn his hon. and right hon. Friends that there will be even less chance of it succeeding if this campaign is pushed further?

Mr. Higgins: I do not accept the second part of the hon. Member's statement. This is a complicated question and

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking at it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a great deal to be said for the unions contributing towards paying their own people who are on strike? Is he aware that many people feel that if the public are to contribute to national assistance strike payments, the unions should also contribute?

Mr. Higgins: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. This question has complex ramifications. My right hon. Friend is looking at it.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the trade union members of the country pay both taxation and national insurance contributions? Should not their wives and families receive assistance according to the law of the land? Will the hon. Gentleman repudiate the vicious campaign that has come from some of his hon. Friends? Does he agree that it is an absolutely disgraceful campaign and that they obviously want working-class people to starve when they go on strike?

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right with regard to the position of the striker by comparison with that of the dependants. As to the other aspect, my hon. Friends have expressed their views and the hon. Gentleman has expressed his. My right hon. Friend is looking at all aspects of this question, but it is a complicated one.

£ Sterling (Rate of Exchange)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now give an undertaking not to restore a fixed rate of exchange for the £ sterling.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Jay: As all recent experience shows that growth and full employment is not compatible with fixed exchange rates, why cannot the Chancellor stick firmly to his Budget Statement that he would alter the exchange rate whenever necessary?

Mr. Barber: My Budget Statement was wholly consistent with the Government's view that the international monetary system should be based on a regime of fixed but adjustable parities, and that is our policy.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel committed to returning to a fixed parity by, say, the end of 1973, and if he is to achieve even that target, will he not concede that he desperately needs the agreement of the TUC to the package on Thursday? In those circumstances, will he tell his hon. Friends, who earlier this afternoon were boasting about tax reductions, that he proposes to reverse all those policies to have any hope of getting agreement with the TUC?

Mr. Barber: I have made it absolutely clear on innumerable occasions that we intend to return to a fixed parity as soon as possible. I hope that this will be before 1st January.

Tax Credits (Confidentiality of Information)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies have been made concerning the preservation of confidentiality in information exchanged with other Government Departments in the operation of future schemes for tax credits.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Paragraph 46 of the Green Paper on the Tax-Credit scheme states that the way in which the scheme would be administered will be the subject of further detailed study, Ministers are well aware of the need to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the customary standards of confidentiality are observed.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, when he says that Ministers are already aware of the necessary steps, that his Department has already given confidential information to employers by classifying people with an H, L, or T in the new tax codes? Since Ministers are prepared to let confidential information be given away to that degree, how much confidence can people have about further possible breaches?

Mr. Jenkin: I am happy to have this opportunity to refute once again the wild and untrue allegations that have appeared in some newspapers about the HLT Scheme. The only information that could possibly be divined from that scheme is that if someone gets an H code he is entitled to the married allowance. As the hon. Member knows, in the leaflet that went out to taxpayers with the notice

of coding, months before they will ever reach employers—no employer has yet had any notice of coding as a result of the HLT Scheme—it was stated in heavy type that if the taxpayer did not wish this information to be communicated to his employer, he could apply for a T—that is, a miscellaneous coding.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (SUMMIT CONFERENCE)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the summit conference.

Dr. Vaughan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the summit conference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made yesterday. —[Vol. 843, c. 791–814.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the lesson of the summit that British interests, such as regional development, have been successfully advanced from within the Community and that the policy of renegotiating the treaty is as irrelevent as the nitpicking performance which we had from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Vaughan: Part of the Community statement refers to proposals for dealing with pollution. Will my right hon. Friend say something more about what he has in mind in that respect?

The Prime Minister: This matter was very fully discussed during the first day of the summit and it was generally agreed that the interaction of pollution in Europe with the quality of life could be of such consequence to the member countries that a firm programme should be laid down for dealing with it in its different aspects. At the same time, there were several indications that we in this country have made much greater progress than some of the other members of the Community and the techniques we have learnt, together with, in many cases, the equipment we produce, will be of value to the Community as a whole.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is it not clear from what the Prime Minister said yester-


day that he has no idea of the amount we are likely to receive by way of regional aid, let alone whether it will equal the amount we give to the common agricultural fund? Has he not taken a leaf out of the book of his predecessor, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, whose slogan, slightly modified, would be, "If you cannot concede, try, try, try again"?

The Prime Minister: The summit laid down the regional policy, its basis and the source of the funds—that is, from the Community funds as a whole. It is to deal with two matters of particular interest to us—the results of industrial change and structural under-employment. This policy will be worked out in detail by the summer, and the Council of Ministers will settle, in the Community budget, the funds to be allotted to it.

Mr. Shore: I am sorry that the Prime Minister has not taken the opportunity to add to the information he gave us yesterday because, as he will well understand, the whole House is interested to know what is involved in the regional fund. The communiqué refers to its being financed from the Community's own resources. Does the Prime Minister envisage a switch from the existing uses of the Community's own resources into the regional development fund, or does he envisage the Community raising additional resources within the category of "own resources"?

The Prime Minister: The sources of the Community's funds are already laid down. The balance between various uses of those resources has to be settled in the Community's budget by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Peel: When dealing with the difficult but very important question of political machinery, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, and ask his colleagues to bear in mind, that it already exists in Western European Union, which could well be used if the members of it so desired? If they so desired, Ireland and Denmark might well be interested to join it, and that might help.

The Prime Minister: The views of the Heads of Government at the summit were that the machinery should develop in the Community itself. Western European Union fulfils a particular purpose in connection with the treaty, which is

of great importance. But I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that the Republic of Ireland would wish to join Western European Union.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Prime Minister elaborate on the answer he gave just now to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the Community's own resources in relation to regional expenditure? Is it not a fact—I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that the Community's own resources are pretty fully committed with expenditure commitments, including, above all, the common agricultural policy? Does he interpret what is now proposed as meaning that there will be a switch from existing expenditure—for example, a reduction in the common agricultural policy subsidies—in order to accommodate the regional expenditure; or does he feel, as is probably realistic, that additional taxation will have to be raised, which would fall very heavily on us in the present circumstances of taxation? Which of those two does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind—additional taxation for the regions, or a switch from agricultural expenditure within the present total?

The Prime Minister: The Community resources are increasing considerably, first, because of the economic growth of the Community, secondly, because of the additional new members, and, thirdly, because of value added tax coming into operation. The total amount of the budget will have to be judged from year to year, as with any other budget. The balance will be apportioned by the Council of Ministers.

INFLATION

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the progress of his Government's policies to combat inflation.

The Prime Minister: We have substantially reduced the rate of increase of prices since the summer of 1971. What we are now proposing is a voluntary arrangement with the TUC and the CBI on ways of achieving our agreed economic objectives, including moderation in the rate of cost and price inflation.

Sir Gilbert Longden: While the rate of increase in the standard of living and the growth rate in this country have both practically doubled and the rate of inflation has halved since the Government came into office, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that the perfectly true and satisfactory statistical figures do not cut much ice with the housewife who is worried because prices seem to be rising daily? Is my right hon. Friend aware that any action which the Government can take to restore the value of money will have the full backing of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the last part of what my hon. Friend said, but the facts he mentioned in the first part are fully borne out by the statistics. At this moment economic growth in this country is at least 5 per cent., which is far greater than the rate which the Labour Party achieved at any time during its last five years in office.

Mr. Orme: In the talks with the TUC, is not the Prime Minister basing his argument on trying to achieve an incomes policy which for many workers will mean an incomes freeze, and as his argument is central to the Government's philosophy, may I ask him how he has come to change his mind on the issue of incomes? He now wants to negotiate a so-called voluntary policy with the TUC after attacking the TUC and introducing the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing (Finance) Act, and so on. What has changed his mind?

The Prime Minister: The Government have been prepared to consult and negotiate with the TUC from the day they came to office, and the TUC is well aware of that. They have carried out their election undertakings to introduce the Industrial Relations Bill and the "fair rents" Bill, and we have carried both of them to the Statute Book.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not a fact that the substantial taxpayer subsidisation of the wage and salary bills in the nationalised industries is liable to add to the pressures of inflation? If it be true that the Government are contemplating subsidising the price of imported foods and raw materials, will not that tend in the same direction?

The Prime Minister: The point raised in the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is not under discussion other than from the point of view of what has been happening in certain specific arrangements about milk. On the first part, in any policy of price restraint one must weigh the impact of nationalised industry prices rising and themselves creating inflation against the impact of the subsidy which goes to the nationalised industries and its effect on the money supply. This is where the balance must be struck. But there can be no doubt that if the nationalised industries were to increase their prices in order to remove the need for subsidies, the impact on the retail price index would be very great indeed.

Mr. Ashton: Can the Prime Minister explain why, when the Opposition put down Questions like this, he transfers them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and when hon. Members opposite put down Questions like this he answers them? Is he not guilty of bias, and will he give an undertaking that in the next Session he will accept from the Opposition Questions on inflation like Question No. 03?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman likes to give me any example of a Question which he thinks has been wrongly transferred, I will examine it. When he last made such an allegation in the House, I wrote to him showing that he was completely wrong.

LANCASHIRE

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-operation between the Departments of Trade and Industry, Environment and Employment in increasing prospects for new jobs in Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Our regional industrial policy is designed to assist the creation and maintenance of employment particularly in assisted areas.

Mr. Redmond: While no one other than people completely blinded by prejudice would fail to recognise the remarkable job which the Prime Minister did in Paris for the people of Lancashire, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether


he agrees that the unemployment figures are totally misleading in that they overstate the problem nationally and understate it in certain areas? Does it not lead to difficulty in other Departments by devising a policy which can create local shortages of labour which are inflationary yet still leaving high unemployment in places like Bolton?

The Prime Minister: We are anxious that the employment figures should be as accurate as possible and a fresh examination has been made of them to see whether there are any difficulties of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, last month there was a reduction in unemployment in Bolton from 5·4 per cent. in September to 4·7 per cent. in October. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House are gratified by that.

Mr. Charles Morris: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable concern among Lancashire cotton workers at the continued contraction of the British textile industry? Can he give them an assurance that the commitment which he accepted at the summit conference in Paris of a 15 per cent. increase in imported manufactured products from the developing world will not mean new and additional burdens for the British textile industry?

The Prime Minister: I fully realise the importance of that point. Those at the summit did not commit themselves to the 15 per cent., although we were prepared to accept it, had other countries been prepared to accept it. However, within that 15 per cent. it would have been open to us to apportion it between particular commodities which are traded with the developing word. The Community accepted a substantial increase, but we are able to govern the particular commodities which come in.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made this year.

The Prime Minister: Two, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Without commenting on the legal problem of thalidomide children, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a broadcast calling on the Distillers Company to face up to its moral

responsibilities, thereby endorsing the view expressed on both sides of the House? Will he announce in that broadcast that he has asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to convene and chair a conference between the company and the children's parents so that they can seek to expedite a solution, because the Government, having distributed the thalidomide, have their share of responsibility for this tragedy?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. In the circumstances of the legal proceedings which he has described, I do not think that it would be right for me to broadcast or to make a public statement. But the hon. Gentleman has his Early-Day Motion on the Order Paper, and the Government will consider the question in the light of that Motion and Mr. Speaker's Ruling.

Mr. McCrindle: I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend should emulate his predecessor in the frequency of his television appearances, but would he accept that many of us on this side of the House and many people throughout the country would welcome more frequent appearances than has been his recent practice?

The Prime Minister: It is very gratifying that, in two days, both sides of the House should be in agreement on at least this one issue.

Mr. Bidwell: If the Prime Minister decides to make another broadcast, will he explain to the old-age pensioners, in particular, why the Government's policy on negative income tax, which is supposed to do them a good turn, must wait for five years, because many of them will be dead long before that?

The Prime Minister: The Green Paper itself has to be discussed, but I think that the whole House recognises the immense administrative problems of changing over the whole of our tax and social services payment system in the way proposed. We have always been prepared to look at the timing of this, but I do not think anybody would underestimate what is involved in it. From the point of view of old-age pensioners, we have accepted what no Government have accepted before, that is, an annual review. What is more, since we have been in office we have increased their pensions by approximately 33 per cent., a very considerable increase.

NATIONAL PARKS (FENCES)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. David Clark (Collie Valley): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of barbed wire on fences adjacent to public highways within National Parks.
In doing so I should like to emphasise that this applies only to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members to withdraw quietly.

Mr. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This Bill applies only to National Parks, because I believe it is in the National Parks that this problem is most acute. I would remind the House that the National Parks are designated by Parliament as places of outstanding natural beauty, places where there is the nation's natural heritage which is to be protected, places where people take their recreation, their pleasure and enjoyment, and enjoy all the beauties of those so-called designated areas.
While the Bill is a general Bill I wonder if the House will allow me to particularise in certain respects and to draw an example from my own constituency, of which some falls within the Peak National Park. I should like to emphasise, further, that the Bill is not against all types of fences. I am more conscious than most, perhaps, of the treatment of local people within National Parks, and, indeed, I would suggest that in the past we have got our National Parks on the cheap, or, at least, at the expense of the local indigenous population. No one is more aware than I of this need to earn their living and to protect National Parks, and if we are to keep our parks as living countryside we must retain our farming system.
However, I feel that of late there has been a certain amount of abuse in the guise of agricultural improvement within our National Parks. Certain landowners have taken advantage of the 60 per cent. grants under the capital grants scheme to erect fences within National Parks. Ostensibly the fences are to keep the cattle and the sheep in, and that is a point about which I do not disagree. However, having erected wire fences in

many parts of the country they go a stage further and put on top of the wire fences two strands of barbed wire, and I cannot help thinking that the double strands of barbed wire are not primarily to keep the sheep or cattle in. I am of the opinion that they are to keep the general public out, and that should not be the state of affairs within our National Parks.
I have talked to farmers and landowners about this. They say to me, "We need barbed wire fences to protect the fencing underneath". I would submit that this is complete balderdash. I have worked in the forest industry and have from time to time erected miles of fences but I have never once erected a fence of barbed wire.
Clearly, we have to protect the normal fencing, but the normal single strand of normal wire is just as effective as barbed wire.
I should like to give one example of the effect of this developing practice in one part of one National Park. I am sure that this is applicable to other National Parks as well. I refer to an undesirable clement which has manifested in a park in my constituency, within the National Park in the Holmfirth, Meltham and Saddleworth areas. This is a part of the countryside which straddles the Pennines, a part of the countryside which has the atmosphere of the kind which the Brontes themselves described, parts of which some people might refer to as bleak, but others as beautiful; but, indeed, one would have to be without spirit not to regard it as having some mystique.
Traditionally, people have wandered off the roads on to the moors to get their enjoyment and their recreation there. Suddenly this seemingly unchanging scene is dramatically affected and thus within the last 12 months we have seen erected along that route fences, and not only fences but the offensive double strands of barbed wire along the top. I cannot help getting the impression that some part of this moorland is reminiscent of the concentration camp rather than of the freedom one would expect on the Yorkshire moors.
We are finding this development taking place when there is an increasing demand for public access to the countryside. Never before have we had so great a demand,


and yet we are finding, even within our National Parks, that there is today less opportunity for access than there was two years ago or even 20 years ago. Only on Sunday more than 200 people braved the weather to attend a walk 1,000 ft. up in the Pennines at the inauguration of a footpath which we managed to negotiate. I am conscious of the demand which there is in an area like that, and we shall have more demand.
That is why I seek leave to introduce this Bill. Under Sections 11 and 37 of the Countryside Act, 1968, many of us felt that this problem would be avoided, but that does not appear to be the case, and that is the reason why I feel there is need for the Bill.
I would submit that the present situation is wasteful, in the sense that we have such a small amount of attractive, beautiful land that it must be used for multi-purposes and not mono-purposes. Barbed wire on top of a fence is offensive to the sightseer. It is dangerous to the walker or passer-by. It goes across many of the moors and many of the footpaths, as in the example I have just mentioned, which is in the famous Pennine Way across the highest stretch of the moor. Finally, I would submit that it is annoying to the general taxpayer who finds he is paying 60 per cent. of the cost of keeping himself out of his own natural heritage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Clark, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, Mr. Harold Walker, Mr. Brynmor John, and Mr. Caerwyn Roderick.

NATIONAL PARKS (FENCES)

Bill to prohibit the use of barbed wire on fences adjacent to public highways within National Parks presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed.[Bill 198.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I wonder whether I might be allowed to make a few remarks on points that were raised yesterday about the Lords Amendments to this Bill.
Basically, I was faced with the alternative either of asking the House to enter on the Amendments quickly or of delaying Prorogation. From earlier discussions I gathered that to take them quickly would be the more acceptable of these two, perhaps not very acceptable, courses. That was my genuine opinion. Nevertheless, I want to apologise to the House for any inconvenience that has been caused.
On the question of the availability of Amendments which was raised yesterday, I find that the first batch was available in the Vote Office on Friday morning and there was a complete print on Saturday morning. Although this is a somewhat better situation than was mentioned in yesterday's exchanges, I again accept that the interval between the print being available and the debate was less than usual, and shorter than I would normally have been willing to propose. Perhaps again I should repeat my apology to the House, and in view of the circumstances I have described hope that hon. Members will be forbearing.

Mr. John Silkin: The whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement; I am sure it was the right thing to do. I hope he will not mind me saying that I am sure he will never regard this situation as a precedent. However desirable it may be to obtain Government business, the House deserves to be treated properly. In this instance, with so many Amendments before the House, hon. Members faced an almost impossible task; but the right hon. Gentleman has handsomely given us his views, and I think we should be wise to leave it at that.

Clause 8

CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 8, line 8, after "of" insert "metropolitan".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is substantially a drafting point, although I know that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) feels that a point of substance is involved. Its purpose is to make clear that there is power to make an order providing for elections to London borough councils to be held in any or each of the years between county council elections.
The effect will be that it will be possible for London boroughs as a whole to have either whole council elections or, like metropolitan districts, elections of thirds. The effect of the Amendment, by inserting the word "metropolitan", is to make it clear that it allows for elections of London borough councils to be held in any or each of the years in which metropolitan district council elections are now held, namely between county council elections.
Clause 8 as a whole is merely an enabling power. Any change in the existing timing of arrangements will require an order by the Secretary of State and such order will be subject to affirmative Resolution of the House.
The position of the Greater London Council will be that, if no order is made, then there would be whole council elections every three years; but the Secretary of State can make an order under Clause 8(2)(a) allowing the holding of council elections every four years; whereas for London boroughs, which at the moment have whole council elections every three years, the Secretary of State will in future be able to make an order, either for whole council elections every four years, or for elections by thirds on the exact analogy of metropolitan districts. At an earlier stage we undertook to consult with the boroughs before coming to a decision, but any decision will have to apply to all the boroughs

since we should not like there to be a different decision on each borough.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John Silken: I am grateful to the Minister of State for clarifying this issue, although his words will require some study by the various members of the London Boroughs Association before they can understand what is involved.
This is a complicated matter and, to some extent, I am the villain of the piece since it was I who on Report asked what was meant by "district council"—it could mean metropolitan; it could mean non-metropolitan. I am beginning to wish that I had not asked.
Certain of my noble Friends in another place felt that if the word "district" were qualified by the word "metropolitan" it might have a very restrictive effect on the Home Secretary and might force him, were he to make an order, to equate the GLC with other metropolitan districts. However, it now appears that there will be alternatives. One of my noble Friends in the other place thought that the better way to deal with the matter would be by using the word "non-metropolitan" instead of "metropolitan" to qualify "district". I considered this matter in the late hours of last night and early this morning and I believe that that suggestion would have an even worse effect because, by the time the Bill has been operating for some time, there will be non-metropolitan district elections every single year. The lesson to he drawn is that the whole Clause should have been redrafted in another place. But, as it is, we are stuck with this provision and the Minister has decided on this method of achieving what he wants.
The Minister has given again the undertaking which his right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), namely that there is no question of the Secretary of State ordering something which was not wanted by local authorities. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider one point. A moment ago he used the phrase "all the London boroughs". I do not want to anticipate what may or may not take place, but there might conceivably be a difference of opinion between those outer London boroughs which are used to one method


of election and the inner London boroughs which are used to another.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman simply say that his right hon. Friend will not totally close his mind to the possibility that there might be differences? The Bill itself makes differences between non-metropolitan districts. There might be a non-metropolitan district opting for an all-council election side by side with another district council which might opt for an annual election. There seems to be no logical reason why this situation should not also obtain in London as well. Will the Government be prepared to look at the situation if the right hon. Gentleman decides to bring in an order to alter the present situation in London?
We all know that courts regrettably, never take any notice of what is said in this House; they take notice only of the law as it comes to them. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the situation aright, but it is arrived at by a circumlocutory method. If the courts were to decide that his interpretation was wrong, I take it that there would be amending legislation to achieve what we both want to see.

Mr. Carlisle: With the leave of the House, may I say that I hope that the situation which the right hon. Gentleman outlined will not arise. I think it is clear that wording the provision in the way we have leaves the widest flexibility in the hands of the Home Secretary. I wish to reiterate that we are committed to consult both the GLC and the London Boroughs Association on this matter. The final decision must be with the Home Secretary, who will obviously take into account the views expressed. My right hon. Friend cannot commit himself in advance to say that this will in any way bind him.
I think I am right in saying that since the wording deals with each or any of the years in which a metropolitan district election is held, this would allow for what the right hon. Gentleman asks. However, I must make it clear that in the rest of the Bill we have distinguished between non-metropolitan and metropolitan. We have made it clear that we are not giving metropolitan districts an option. The analogy for the London boroughs is the metropolitan district rather than the non-

metropolitan district. Therefore, it will be appropriate to have a similar system of elections throughout London.

Mr. John Silkin: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel that already a distinction is being made in London because, subject to the Secretary of State's overriding authority, there will be three, possibly four, choices open to the London boroughs. To that extent he is not dealing with them exactly in the way in which metropolitan districts are being dealt with in other parts of the country. He is treating them almost as rather privileged non-metropolitan districts.

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps I may limit it to saying that my prima facie reaction is that to have a different type of election in the different boroughs in London would add confusion to the situation, but so far as I can see there is nothing in the wording which would shut out a solution of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman has asked us to consider if it was felt to be appropriate.
I was saying that there are arguments for dealing with all the London boroughs in an identical way. I believe that some order will have to be made, otherwise we shall have a three-year cycle of elections in London and a four-year cycle in the rest of the country. It is desirable to have the same sort of timetable in London as is pursued outside London. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the final decision is left completely open by the Amendment. We shall consider carefully what the London boroughs say and indeed what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS.

Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 225, line 6, at end insert:
(4) In 1974 the ordinary day of election of London borough councillors shall be the first Thursday in May.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose is to ensure that there is no doubt about the day of the ordinary election of London borough councillors in 1974. The effect is that it will be the first Thursday in May, which will be the day for all local elections after 1974.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 226, line 23, leave out "general".

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. The reference to the "annual general meeting" of the Greater London Council or London boroughs is quite wrong. They do not have an annual general meeting; they merely have annual meetings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 226, line 47, leave out from "council" to end of line 49.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The words to be left out relate to aldermanic retirement dates. The aldermen will now disappear from London in 1976–77. An earlier provision in paragraph 11 of the Schedule adequately covers the ground covered by the words which the Amendment will Omit.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

PARISH MEETINGS AND COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 8, line 38, at end insert:
(aa) every parish which immediately before the passing of this Act was co-extensive with a rural district".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 54, 58 to 64, and 70 and 71.

Mr. Speed: The 11 Amendments taken together seem a rather long and complicated way of doing things. They provide for a separate parish council for the parish of an existing rural district of one parish. There are only three such rural district councils, Alston with Garrigill, which I understand is north-east of Penrith, Disley, in the Manchester area, and Tintwhistle, in the Peak District. At present, under Section 43(3) of the 1933 Act, there is no need for a parish council in these cases. The rural district council is deemed to be the parish council, and has all parish functions as well as rural district ones. Unfortunately, this provision does not of itself preserve the existing rural district council as a new parish council, so the Amendments are required to do so.
Specifically, the Amendments provide that these three rural district councils shall have elections at the same time as the new districts in 1973. The councillors shall be both rural district councillors and parish councillors, and when the rural district council is abolished on 1st April, 1974, they will continue as parish councillors.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

Lords Amendment: No. 48, in page 227, line 33, at end insert:
(3) An order under this paragraph shall, notwithstanding that it applies only to one or some of the non-metropolitan counties, proceed in Parliament as if its provisions would, apart from this paragraph, require to be enacted by a Public Bill.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment adds a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. Paragraph 1 provides the authority for the division of non-metropolitan counties into districts. This is to be done by order to be approved in draft by Resolution of each House. It is not yet certain whether the non-metropolitan districts will all be covered by one order under the paragraph


or whether it might be necessary to have more than one order covering different parts of the country. If there were separate orders covering different parts of the country the issue would arise as to whether these were matters which would otherwise have fallen to be dealt with under local legislation, and thus, under Standing Order No. 216 of another place, have attracted the possibility of petitions being received by that House. That would clearly not be appropriate in the present instance, as the operation is concerned with the setting up of a general pattern of districts for the whole of the non-metropolitan counties in England. The new sub-paragraph is being inserted to eliminate the possibility of a private Bill type procedure being followed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 49, in page
228, line 4, at end insert:
(3) An order under this paragraph may contain such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or proper.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: with this Amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendment No.87.

Mr. Carlisle: The Amendments are technical. Their effect is to ensure that warding orders for the first elections can also make consequential provisions for such matters as adapting the register to the new wards.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed
to.

Lords Amendment: No. 52, in page 229, line 14, leave out " 1(6) "and insert "4(1)".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Lords Amendments Nos. 53, 89 to 91, 128 to 136 and 138 to 150.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 87.

Mr. Speed: It might be for the convenience of the House if Lords Amendment No. 145, which is related to Lords Amendment No. 137, were taken out of that group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: if that is for the convenience of the House, so be it.

Mr. Speed: This large group of Amendments is, I hope, uncontroversial. The Amendments are essentially drafting. The 1933 Act provisions repeated in the Bill are defective in one place and perhaps not quite as clear as they might be in others. The Amendments are designed to simplify and clarify the provisions of Schedule 12, setting out the minimum statutory framework regulating the meetings and proceedings of local authorities. Local authority associations have been consulted, and are generally content.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed
to.

Schedule 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN WALES

Lords Amendment: No. 73, in page 239, line 39, column 3, leave out "Portmadoc" and insert "Porthmadog".

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a very simple Amendment, which is necessary in view of the recently-approved change of name of the urban district of Portmadoc. It is now to be spelt "Porthmadog".

Mr. George Thomas: This may appear a small change, but it indicates a change of mood amongst our people home in Wales. The House will be quite right to agree with their lordships that if a local community wishes to have a Welsh form of description, of their community, or more Welsh form of description, they are entitled to have it. We very gladly support the Government and their lordships in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 27

COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 80, in page 19, line 27, leave out "As from" and insert:
For the purpose of exercising functions on and after".

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that we are to discuss with it Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Essentially these are drafting Amendments to make clear that community councils are to be brought into being in Wales as shadow authorities shortly before 1st April, 1974, and, where appropriate, to hold their first meeting before that date.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30

RESTRICTION ON COMMUNITY APPLICATION DURING AND AFTER REVIEWS

Lords Amendment: No. 84, in page 22, line 13, at end insert:
(1A) In relation to an application under section 28(4) above subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the words "two years" in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words "five years".

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Lords Amendment No. 85.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The effect of the Amendments is to extend the period during which a community meeting is not to apply to the district council for the dissolution of its community council. The Amendments extend the period from two years to five years from the date on which the community council was established.
The Amendments were suggested to the Government by the National Associa-

tion of Parish Councils, and we were very happy to accept them in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AUTHORITIES IN WALES

Lords Amendment: No. 92, in page 247, line 15, leave out "section 44(4) and (5)" and insert:
sections 44(4) and (Temporary appointment of members of parish and community councils)."

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 95, 99–101, 102, 103 and 126.

Mr. Carlisle: Lords Amendments Nos. 92, 99–101, 102 and 126 are drafting Amendments. They deal with parish and community councils, spelling out the power of a district council to fill casual vacancies in those councils.
Lords Amendments Nos. 95 and 103 are technical Amendments, merely taking account of the establishment of community councils in Wales and the fact that elections for district, parish and community councils will in future be regulated by rules made under Clause 42.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40

RETURNING OFFICERS AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 94, in page 26, line 10, at end insert:
(1B) In the event of the death of a sheriff the acting returning officer shall discharge all the duties of sheriff as returning officer until another sheriff is appointed and has made the declaration of office.
(3A) Section 25 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 (Death of sheriff) shall not authorise the under-sheriff to discharge the duties of returning officer.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment. It ensures that in the event of the death of a sheriff during the period of an election his formal duties as returning officer are discharged by the district council officer who is acting returning officer. The duties of the sheriff as returning officer at an election are in any case limited to the formal duties of receiving and returning the writ. The rest of the duties fall on the deputy.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

ORDINARY DAY OF ELECTION

Lords Amendment: No. 96, in page 28, line 1, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 3 and insert:
In every year after 1974 the ordinary day of election of councillors shall be the same for all local government areas in England and Wales and".

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the principle of "all local elections on one day" should not apply to the first elections. Whilst it has been agreed that future elections should all fall on one day, the elections for the first year, next year, are to be on 12th April for counties, 10th May for metropolitan and Welsh districts, and 7th June for non-metropolitan districts in England, and the elections for the communities in Wales are to be on 7th February, 1973. Unfortunately, the phrase stating that the elections should all be on one day applied to next year as well as following years. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable them to be on different dates during 1973.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44

OMISSION TO HOLD ELECTION OR ELECTION VOID

Lords Amendment: No. 97 in page 28, line 17, leave out from "on" to end of line 20 and insert:
a day appointed by him to fill any vacancy which remains unfilled, being a day falling within the period of forty-two days (computed in accordance with section 237(4) below) beginning with the day fixed as the day of election for the first mentioned election.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendments: No. 98, Nos. 122 to 124, Nos. 345 to 348, No. 428, and No. 528.

Mr. Carlisle: And No. 588, according to my list.
These purely technical Amendments deal with certain imperfections in Clause 237 which deals with the computation of time for the purposes of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COM MISSION FOR ENGLAND

Lords Amendment: No. 104, in page 251, line 16, leave out paragraph 3.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to deal at the same time with the following Lords Amendments: No. 105, No. 477—new Clause R, Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957—and No. 632.

Mr. Speed: The effect of these Amendments is to disqualify from membership of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament the members of the Local Government Boundary Commission


for England, of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales, of the Local Government Staff Commission for England and of the Local Government Staff Commission for Wales; and Assistant Commissioners of the Local Government Boundary Commissions for England and Wales and electoral registration officers for parliamentary elections.
Part IV of the Bill provides for the establishment of a permanent Local Government Boundary Commission for England and a separate Boundary Commission for Wales. The English Boundary Commission is to comprise a chairman, deputy chairman and not more than five other members. The Welsh Boundary Commission is to comprise a chairman, deputy chairman and not more than three other members.
Clauses 65 and 66 make provision for the appointment of assistant commissioners by the Secretary of State at the request of a Commission. The third paragraphs of Schedules 7 and 8 already contain provisions to secure the disqualification of these commissioners and assistant commissioners. So far, so good.
The Bill makes no provision, however, for the disqualification of the members of the Local Government Staff Commissions. A Staff Commission for England is to be established under Clause 245 and a separate Staff Commission for Wales is to be appointed under Clause 246. These are not to be permanent bodies. We envisage that they will cease to function in 1975. The London Government Staff Commission had a similarly brief existence. Its members were disqualified by virtue of Section 92(2) of the London Government Act, 1963. But this Bill makes no provision for the disqualification of the new Staff Commissions; we believe that it should do so, and that is part of the purpose of these Amendments.
Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, disqualifies the clerks and deputy clerks of county, urban district and rural district councils in England and Wales, the town clerks and deputy town clerks of county boroughs, London boroughs and non-county boroughs in England and Wales, and the clerk and deputy clerk of the Greater London Council. This

disqualification extends to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament and the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
Clause 110(3) of our Bill will have the effect of relieving the new authorities and the authorities in Greater London of the duties, at present in Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1933, to appoint clerks and town clerks; and we are conferring no express power for the appointment of deputies of any kind. In future the work now done by clerks, town clerks and their deputies will be done by "proper officers". Indeed, after reorganisation the present statutory functions of, say, a town clerk may be performed by more than one "proper officer". Moreover, there will be no requirement on the new councils or the authorities in London to appoint a "first officer" or "chief executive".
It may once have been argued that clerks and town clerks should be disqualified because they often have to advise their councils on matters with a highly political content. But clerks and town clerks are not unique in this; Housing managers, treasurers, planners and other senior officers also advise on controversial questions. So if the object of disqualifying clerks and town clerks is to keep them politically impartial, the disqualification should be extended to all officers who advise councillors.
Bearing all these things in mind, we believe that it is not really practicable or necessary to devise a new formula to replace the present references in the 1957 Act to local government officers of English and Welsh authorities.
4.15 p.m.
On the other hand, we consider that registration officers should be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament. By Clause 43 all but the formal duties of a returning officer at a Parliamentary election are to be discharged by an acting returning officer who is the registration officer. At present the registration officer is ex officio either clerk of a county council or a town clerk of a borough, and thus disqualified from election to Parliament. Clearly the registration officer who may be acting returning officer ought still to be disqualified and the Amendment achieves this.
On reflection, the Government consider that the whole question of House of Commons disqualification under this Bill should be dealt with in a new Clause and should not be tucked away in a Schedule.
To sum up, the Amendments incorporate the material now in the third paragraphs of Schedules 7 and 8 of the Bill: they disqualify the members of the Local Government Staff Commissions for England and Wales; they get rid of the disqualification on English and Welsh clerks, town clerks and their deputies for membership of the House of Commons at Westminster and the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland; and they disqualify registration officers appointed under Clause 39.
I hope that I have not confused the House too much. Essentially these are technical but reasonable Amendments. It is much more efficient and clear to have all these provisions in a new Clause than to have them scattered about the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: We follow what the Under-Secretary has said, but we are left a little uneasy. As I understand it, the Government are allowing any local government officer to serve on the Boundary Commission. This may well be a difficult matter to put into practice, and the selection of a local authority officer from any given area may well be invidious. The number of local authority officers who could so serve will be very limited. I should have thought that, even including Wales, not more than one or two could serve. Does the Under-Secretary think that the Government have this right?
On the Boundary Commission which is now sitting it was possible to get a very distinguished former county clerk to serve. He had the confidence of the members of his local authority, but in retirement he is seen to be totally uncommitted to the county council to which he gave such distinguished service over such a long period. I think that is the right solution. The Government might be storing up trouble for themselves or their successors when it comes to choosing a person to appoint.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is important to have on the Boundary

Commission someone with a detailed and working knowledge of local government, we absolutely agree, especially in view of the way in which party politics and local political matters are conducted. However, that experience could be found outside serving officers. I believe that many serving officers will be loth to serve on a Boundary Commission while they are busy performing their normal duties to their employing authorities.

Mr. Speed: With the leave of the House, I will seek to reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I do not quite follow the point the hon. Gentleman made. What I was discussing was whether members of the Local Government Boundary Commission should be disqualified for standing for the United Kingdom Parliament. While they are members of the Boundary Commission they do not have to be necessarily local government officers. Whatever their status in life, while they are members of the Boundary Commission or of the Staff Commission or assistant commissioners we believe that it is right, as was argued on the London Government Bill, 1963, that they should not be qualified at that point in time for membership of the United Kingdom Parliament or for the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland. This does not in any way preclude them from subsequently seeking membership of those bodies. I repeat that we are discussing only the question of disqualification.
The Amendments bring together in one Clause rather than scattering throughout the Schedules provisions securing that members of the Local Government Boundary Commissions for England and for Wales and of the Local Government Staff Commissions for England and for Wales, Assistant Commissioners of the Boundary Commissions for England and for Wales, and electoral registration officers should not be qualified for membership of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom or for the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for that explanation. But, that being the case, can the Minister say why this is done in this Bill and not in the Representation of the People Act which is the normal Act to determine the qualifications of people to stand for Parliament?

Mr. Speed: With the leave of the House, the Local Government Staff Commissions, we envisage, will have only a short duration of life. I would expect that by 1975 they will have done their work. This is certainly true in the case of the London Government Act.
We are at some disadvantage because the Local Government Staff Commissions are actually not statutory authorities until this Bill is enacted. As to boundary commissions and electoral registration officers, these provisions have been enacted in House of Commons Disqualification Acts rather than in Representation of the People Acts. As we have a number of these different people, we are altering the whole question of town clerks and registration officers and it is better to bring them together in this Clause. Obviously in the fullness of time, amendments will have to be made.

Mr. George Thomas: The Minister has put before us a complicated argument on a simple subject. I agree that it requires a complicated argument. However, this shows what a mess the Government have made. After months of deliberation on local government affairs, at this late stage they bring forward a proposal concerning the political freedoms of town clerks. It really is making a nonsense of this House that we are being asked at this late stage to deal with issues which are not small in themselves and which ought to have found their way into separate legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 60

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWS

Lords Amendment: No. 107, in page 43, line 22, after "consult" insert "(i)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we should also take Lords Amendment No. 108.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These Amendments were introduced to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, during the Committee stage in another place. They are designed

to ensure that the Boundary Commissions should consult staff interests about possible boundary changes to local government areas. An Amendment simply to require consultation with staff bodies would in practice require the Commission to seek the views of relevant local branches of well over 100 staff organisations, many of whom might well have no particular interest, and this would be unworkable.
The Amendment leaves it to the staff organisation themselves to decide whether they wish to be consulted and to notify the relevant commission accordingly. The commission would be legally required to consult the organisation. The Government consider that these arrangements should ensure that consultation should take place when it is wanted. At the same time, the Amendment would avoid giving the commissions an unrealistic task in identifying those local staff interests which need to be consulted.

Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of clarification, since the words "staff organisation" might be taken to have unfortunate connotations in certain circumstances, would the Minister confirm that this expression includes trade unions?

Mr. Speed: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10

INITIAL REVIEWS IN WALES

Lords Amendment: No. 109, in page 257, line 2, leave out from "the" to the end of line 4 and insert:
last of the orders which he proposes to make under paragraph 7 above with respect to the communities in that district.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This again is a consequential Amendment to paragraph 11 of Schedule 10 made necessary by an Amendment to paragraph 7 which was accepted on Report.
It makes clear the definition of the completion of the special community review in Wales, and has the effect that


the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales will not start to review the electoral arrangements for a district under paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 until the Secretary of State has made a decision on the last part of the special community review for that district.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68

TRANSITIONAL AGREEMENTS AS TO PROPERTY AND FINANCE

Lords Amendment No. 111, in page 49, line 28, leave out "consent of any sanctioning authority" and insert:
approval of the Secretary of State

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take the following:
Lords Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 and 375.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This formidable list of Amendments is essentially a consolidation measure. They make possible the complete repeal of the Local Government Act, 1933, and the repeal of the financial provisions in four other Acts—Section 8 of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, Section 55 of the Local Government Act, 1958, and Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 and Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963.
An opportunity is also being taken to remove ministerial control over local authorities in a number of financial matters and also to simplify the procedures with regard to the alteration of interest rates.
I should make it clear that the introduction of this large consolidation measure in no way prejudges whatever conclusions the Government may arrive at later in the matter of the reorganisation of local authority finance. Indeed, it is a consolidation measure largely of the existing arrangements. The fact that they are introduced at this time means that

they will not prejudge what we may decide to do later.
As to Clause 68, the Amendments are consequential on the proposed Part I of Schedule 13 which, amongst other things, requires the approval of the Secretary of State to the borrowing of money, other than for lending to another authority, by local authorities. The expression "sanctioning authority" which appeared in the 1933 Act is no longer to be used.
The new Clause after Clause 166 amends the various existing enactments listed in subsection (1) which require the Secretary of State to determine by statutory instrument the rate of interest chargeable by local authorities on money owed to them under those enactments. The enactments necessitate the making of fresh instruments whenever a significant change in the interest rate is required.
An opportunity is now being taken to bring the Acts mentioned into line with current practice—for example, the Agricultural Act, 1970—by linking the rate of interest directly to that charged by the Public Works Loan Commissioners on local loans.
This change has been sought for local authorities generally for some time, and it will be welcome to the Department because it saves the need for an appreciable number of statutory instruments.
Most of the rest of the arrangements are largely consolidating, except subsection (2). This provides that the new rate of interest being linked shall in future be one quarter per cent. above the rate determined by the Treasury for local loans of 15 years. Where more than one exists, the Treasury has to direct which shall apply.
If hon. Members have any questions on any of the other Amendments, I shall be happy to answer them, but I stress, as was stressed in another place, that these are consolidation measures and that the Government's thinking on local government finance will in due course be announced to the House before the end of the year.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: That was a totally inadequate explanation of this enormous group of Amendments, and it is just not good enough to say that they amount to consolidation. The


local authorities, I understand, are most disturbed about the way in which all these proposals have been suddenly landed on them, as, indeed, they have been landed on us. It may well be that many of the provisions in the Amendments meet points which local authorities have sought in the past—I do not necessarily deny that—but it is intolerable that they and we should be asked to go through this mass of material—about 11 pages of major alterations dealing with important matters of finance—in this last-minute fashion.
I understand that the local authorities have had next to no time to examine the changes proposed, and I gather that city treasurers are telephoning to the local authority associations to ask for guidance, pointing out that it will take days, if not weeks, to go through it all to satisfy themselves that the Government's proposals are welcome to them.
This will not do. It is quite unsatisfactory to suggest that these are all agreed measures. Indeed, the comment in the other place by one Minister to the effect that, as far as was known, these proposals were not objected to is somewhat resented by the local authorities because, they say, they have just not had time to tell whether they object to them or not. The situation is absurd.
Yesterday, at the beginning of our proceedings, we were told that there were no major matters of deep concern which need worry us, yet here is a case in point. In this short period, some matters of concern have been detected, but we do not pretend that they are the only ones. Merely by way of illustration, I take as an example from these many sheets of the Paper before us Amendment No. 246, dealing with the important matter of borrowing, lending and funds. One item with which it deals is the power of local authorities to issue money bills, a perfectly proper power which we all appreciate and understand. It is a matter of great consequence. It is hard to think of anything more important.
There are two ways in which Amendment No. 246 imposes limitations upon the power of local authorities to issue bills. One is the perfectly understandable requirement that they must not borrow more than a certain proportion of their rate income, and that is set out. But

there is a further provision laying down that
A local authority shall not borrow by the issue of bills in any financial year during which the authority's estimated gross income derived from rates does not exceed £3 million or such other sum as may be prescribed by an order made by the Treasury.
This also may be understandable, but the result appears to exclude the right of many smaller authorities to use the bill market. In the past, such local authorities have joined together. Authorities with limited resources—this has been a fairly common and recognised practice—have joined together in order to issue bills, setting up a consortium of authorities for the purpose. It is common in London. I believe that the City of Westminster issues for the London boroughs jointly. But, as we read these proposals —we may be wrong, and so may the local authorities, but there is great concern about it—that facility will no longer be available, and local authorities will not be able to join together. The requirement is clear: each authority wishing to make use of these facilities must have a gross income of at least £3 million from rates in the particular year.
I admit that I speak subject to correction, but that is an important change which is but one illustration—there may well be many others—of the way in which local authorities will be affected. I imagine that my right hon. and hon. Friends have already had other cases referred to them.
We cannot allow this group of Amendments to go by in the present situation. I have received representations from the Association of Municipal Corporations expressing a very serious view of this whole procedure. Our first thought on seeing the Amendments on the Paper was that the Government had decided to drop the idea of new legislation dealing with local government finance and they were proposing to mop us some of the problems in the present Bill. At earlier stages, we were told that many other matters involving finance with which we wanted to deal could not be dealt with in the Bill because one had to wait for the special legislation on local government finance to come forward next Session. We were all eagerly awaiting, with tongues hanging out, this new legislation, but now we are presented with this mass of proposals, 11 pages of them, of real


significance and in no sense to be regarded as trivialities. They are rushed upon us at this stage of all stages in the protracted passage of the Bill, and we cannot accept what the Government have put before us.
We have given an easy road to earlier Amendments today, we have made no attempt to hold matters up, but we must dig our heels in now. We cannot accept this situation, and we require from the Government an explanation very different from that which we have had from the junior Minister introducing the Amendments.

Mr. Speed: I cannot accept what has been said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). His noble Friend in the other place accepted that they were largely consolidation measures, and so they are. However, if it will help —I appreciate that the new Schedule 13 is substantial, and I admit that I reeled in my chair when I first saw it, as, no doubt, he did—I shall go through the Amendment paragraph by paragraph in order to allay some of the fears which he has expressed.
Paragraph 1 of the new Schedule 13 in effect re-enacts Section 195 of the 1933 Act whereby local authorities require the consent of the sanctioning authority, that is, the Secretary of State, for the exercise of borrowing powers. In recent years, the Government have moved from control of individual projects towards control by programmes and by block allocations. Amendment No. 246 recognises this while still retaining the principle of control by loan sanction. In other words, it is a cleaning up as well as a consolidating exercise. The possibility has been considered of more far-reaching change in the law to reflect the Government's concern with all local government capital expenditure, not only with the amount of borrowing, but that would be a major departure from the present situation and we have decided not to make such a change at the present time.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: For convenience does the Minister prefer us to intervene on points we do not understand as we go along or would he prefer us to put all the points to him at the end so that he will then have to reply again?

Mr. Speed: I am happy to give way and, within the range of my ability, to answer the points which may arise.
Paragraph 2 lists the methods of borrowing available to local authorities subject to the restrictions in the other paragraphs in Part I. It consolidates and in addition it allows local authorities to borrow by any method not covered by the enactment which is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State with consent of the Treasury. It extends to all local authorities including parish councils, whose borrowing at present is confined to mortgages. The Schedule and Amendments impose no new burdens upon local authorities. There are no new restrictions as such laid upon them and the conditions and limits are those applying at present, so I am advised.
Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 extend to authorities powers at present held by some under local Acts to borrow abroad or in foreign currency and to borrow by bills and transferable securities and the conditions and limits are those applying at present.
Paragraph 4 provides regulation-making powers in regard to the issue of mortgages, stocks and bonds and it replaces the detailed provisions on mortgages in sections 205–212 of the 1933 Act. For stocks and bonds it largely re-enacts the statutory provisions of Section 204 of that Act and Section 7 and Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963.
Powers are required to ensure that local authority securities are issued on a uniform basis as readily understood and accepted by the market.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I believe that there are cases where local authorities have joined together to borrow money. Will the £3 million limit still apply?

Mr. Speed: £3 million is the present limit and I am advised that as there are no new restrictions or burdens the situation should not change in this regard.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are on a very important point. It appears by the wording of the Amendment, particularly the subsection that I read out, in paragraph 5(3), where it says:
A local authority shall not borrow by the issue of bills in any financial year during which the authority's estimated gross income derived from rates does not exceedmillion…"


that there is a change, as the local authority associations believe, and that the change prevents the operation of consortia in the method that is available today.

Mr. Speed: I am advised that it is not a change, but if it is and if there is a real cause for concern it is a matter which we would certainly consider in any subsequent financial legislation which would be enacted, certainly before—

Mr. John Silkin: That is not good enough. The Under-Secretary, apart from anything else, has to convince us that even if he is right and nothing has been changed, which we do not agree, first that there was some over-riding necessity that caused these 11 pages to be inserted at this very late stage in the Bill which did not exist three months, six months or a year ago. Secondly, he must convince us that there is an over-riding necessity to put into the Bill something that does not change the situation, rather than that we should leave the matter for a few weeks or months until the whole financial question comes up again in the new Session.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Speed: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point with which I should like to deal in a moment. It does not change the situation in general but it changes it in certain respects. The right hon. Gentleman raised a valid point. The change has not come forward earlier because of the length of time the Bill has taken. We have been having lengthy discussions with the local authority associations on the Green Paper on local authority finance. Various representations of a major nature have been made which the Government are considering and on which they will, in the fullness of time, present their conclusions to the House. There is a whole series of minor representations some of which could properly be met in a consolidation Schedule of this sort within the Bill, some of which we felt were more important or would have to await a further financial Bill. A number were appropriate to be included in the Schedule even though it was introduced at a late stage in the other place. If the Bill had been enacted and if our discussions had taken place three or four months ago it would not have been

possible to bring it forward in this way. When the Amendments were tabled in the House of Lords the secretaries of the local authority associations were informed. They had taken note and they had not so far raised any objection to the Department—

Mr. Denis Howell: Nonsense.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Member says, "Nonsense", but that is what I am advised. The hon. Member may have his own lines of information about what they did or did not feel. They were informed when the Amendments were tabled and they have taken note. Most of the minor improvements and arrangements have been as a result of the discussions we have had with the local authority associations over the Green Paper on local authority finance. It is fair to say that the local authorities would like us to have gone much further but the Government will announce their conclusions on the reorganisation of local authority finance towards the end of the year. Whatever conclusions we reach then will be of a more major nature.
Paragraph 7 requires local authorities —[Interruption.]—I have already dealt with paragraphs 3, 5 and 6. I said that they extended powers enabling local authorities to borrow abroad and to borrow by bills and transferable securities. I said that the conditions and limits were those applying at present. At that point I was asked whether it represented a new restriction and I said that my advice was that it did not. I said that if I was wrong and if local authorities had a strong point of view about this they would no doubt be letting us know and I gave an undertaking that this was obviously a matter which would be looked at in the light of legislation we might introduce on local authority finance. I stress again that we are not here dealing with a new local authority finance Bill in any way. These are largely consolidation measures. They include a number of important but minor measures where the Secretary of State will no longer have control over local authorities in certain things they do.
Paragraph 7 requires local authorities to make provision for the payment of interest on debt and the amortisation of that debt by charges to the appropriate


account over a period of years not greater than that fixed for the redemption of the debt. The provision replaces various sections of the 1933 Act and makes it clear that what has to be provided for is redemption of the original debt, not the repayment of a particular loan.
Paragraph 8 is a simplified reenactment of Section 216 of the 1933 Act empowering local authorities to re-borrow without the approval of the Secretary of State from time to time during the period fixed for repayment of the debt.
Paragraph 9 permits authorities to suspend making provision for the redemption of debt required by paragraph 7 and to capitalise interest payment on that debt for a limited period in certain circumstances. It is largely a re-enactment of Section 8 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, but the opportunity has been taken to extend the provision—this is one of the minor changes—so that it applies not only to revenue-earning works and associated land acquisition, but to expenditure solely on land acquisition in circumstances which the Secretary of State considers appropriate. In such cases the period of suspension will be not more than 10 years.
Paragraph 10 re-enacts Section 215 of the 1933 Act which enables local authorities to borrow temporarily, pending the receipt of revenues and the finding of long-term borrowing.
Paragraph 11 re-enacts Section 197 of the 1933 Act, taking up piecemeal Amendments in Schedule 13 of the Bill.
Paragraph 12 is a new power designed to make it easier for local authorities, should they wish, to obtain large loans —for example, stock issues—by combining their borrowing powers. It does not permit them to exceed any limits applying to them individually relating to particular forms of borrowing.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is the essence of our complaint on this matter. We have many other complaints to which we will come later. This new paragraph 12 is limited, is it not, by paragraph 5(2) and (3), to which we have already referred? We must take paragraphs 5 and 12 together to grapple with the point we

are putting forward, that this is a new limitation, particularly on small local authorities.

Mr. Speed: I do not think that is so. Paragraph 5(3) is already the present restrictions. Paragraph 12 provides:
Two or more local authorities may combine to exercise their powers of borrowing under this Part of this Schedule jointly, and where they do so—

"(a) any limit on the amount which each authority may borrow shall apply to the amount which each authority receive from the joint loan;
(b) paragraph 11 above shall apply to the money so borrowed."

Mr. Denis Howell: The point is simple, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) a short time ago. Paragraph 5 limits the amount which local authorities may borrow. When we get to paragraph 12, that says,
Two or more local authorities may combine".
Does the limit already agreed in paragraph 5 apply to the two or more local authorities or to each of them? In other words, is it a multiple limit or a limit divisible by the number of authorities which come together?

Mr. Speed: There appears to be a misunderstanding. It does not permit them to exceed any limit applying to them individually. In other words, if three authorities combine, it is the multiple of three. It is an individual limit. This is not taking away anything they have at present. It is in fact making it easier.
Paragraph 13 extends to all local authorities the substance of a local Act power enjoyed by some councils enabling them to lend moneys to other authorities on agreed terms. This new power makes it unnecessary to re-enact powers in the 1933 Act which enable county councils to lend to parish councils.
Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 re-enact, with the amendments previously included in Schedule 13, the provisions of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, enabling local authorities to establish capital funds and renewal and repairs funds. Again, the opportunity has been taken to dispense with the need for the Secretary of State's consent to the


amalgamation of a similar fund established under any local enactment with a general Act fund.
Paragraph 19 is re-enactment of Section 8 of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, which empowers local authorities to use balances in capital and other funds and not for the time being required for the purposes of such funds for internal borrowing, subject to specified conditions as to repayment.
Paragraph 20 is a straight re-enactment of Section 203 of the 1933 Act. It is intended to afford protection to a lender against the misuse by a local authority of its borrowing powers.
Paragraph 21 re-enacts Section 217(b) and (c) of the 1933 Act. The effect is to exclude from the operation of the Schedule mortgages created against the security of the local sewers—it is doubtful whether any of these mortgages now exist—and local housing bonds which are secured against property as well as revenues.
Paragraph 22 is an interpretation provision which defines certain expressions used in the proposed Part I of Schedule 13.
I apologise for the time I have taken.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no need to apologise.

Mr. Speed: All right, I do not apologise. But when one looks at the vast amount of legislation of all kinds which is splattered over Bills over the centuries—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) surely knows this more than most people —I think that these Amendments are essentially consolidation with one or two new measures, particularly involving the dispensation of the need to go to the Secretary of State for approval. I should think that this would meet with the approval of the House. I am under the firm impression, from the information I have, that although we may not go as far as we would wish with some of the local authorities' desires, on the whole this meets their approval as well.

Mr. John Silkin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down. The right hon. Gentleman, whatever he would have done, would not have introduced 11 pages

of questionable consolidation, which is capable of considerable inquiry before its effect is fully known, three weeks before the House is due to be prorogued by way of Lords Amendments. I would never have dreamed of doing that. The Government have got themselves into their own particular mess and will have to get out of it on that basis.

Mr. Speed: Where we knew that certain minor tidying up Amendments could take place and certain aspects of the Secretary of State's jurisdiction and control over local authorities could be removed—this has been a constant philosophy throughout the Bill—and there were reasonable and sensible ways in which these divers local authority financial Bills stretching back over the years—even to the Bill before I was born —could be brought together in these Amendments and in the Schedule, we felt it was right to do so. I apologise that it has been brought in at this late stage. If we had brought it in three or four months ago, with the discussions we have had with local authorities over the Green Paper, many of the minor Amendments and the tidying up which we have undertaken could not have been done. Nevertheless, I think it will make the Bill better and make the present financial provisions clearer. It removes the Secretary of State's direction over a number of small but important aspects of local authority finance. It in no way prejudges the major decision we must take later. I commend the Lords Amendments to the House.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I want to add my voice to the protest against the way in which this has been done. I cannot remember another example of this sort of Schedule being introduced as a Lords Amendment in the time that I have been a Member of the House.
The Minister's arguments seemed to me spurious. If this was an urgent matter, why could it not have been introduced at the proper stage and given detailed scrutiny in Committee? It follows that it was not urgent but is simply consolidation. In that case, why bring it in now? If it is not urgent, why do we not wait until next Session, when the Government will presumably reform local government finance?


The Minister said that some of this arose from consultations with local authorities and other associations after publication of the Green Paper. I presume that he meant the Green Paper dealing with local government finance, which I assume will be followed by a Bill next Session. Perhaps it will not, and perhaps that is why it is being done today. Perhaps we will not have a Bill on local government finance in the next year or two.
If not, that makes nonsense of the whole of this Bill. Most local authorities will tell the Government that financial reform and this Bill are bound up together.

Mr. Speed: I have said more than once today that the Government hope, before the end of the year, to announce their conclusions on local government finance in a Green Paper.

Mr. Mitchell: Does that mean that legislation will be introduced?

Mr. Speed: To use the time-honoured phrase, I cannot anticipate what will be in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Mitchell: If that is so, why is this proposal before us today? If we are to have a Bill in the next Session, why can this not be incorporated in it? Why should we not go through it in Committee, line by line?
Having read this through and heard the debate, I am still not convinced that the Minister's interpretation of Schedule 13 is right or that he is correct about the relationship of that Schedule with Schedule 12 on the question of borrowing. Had this and a number of other matters been considered in Committee, we could have examined them in the closest detail. We cannot do that tonight.
Why did the Government not say, "We are to have a Bill, so we will withdraw this Amendment and include this proposal in that Bill next Session."?

Mr. Michael Cocks: I support the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). The House has been misused in this matter. Both Ministers in charge of the Bill are so transparently honest that, as we have been before, when their case is thin they are ill-at-ease and a

little discomforted in their presentation. The Under-Secretary has run true to form in this case. He has been conned. The Government, I believe, have got greedy and decided to shuffle into the Bill at the last minute a whole lot of extraneous matter which could well have been left out. The Government seem to want to have the penny and the bun.
Consolidation Measures are scrutinised very closely to ensure that they make no change in the law. I once moved 12 Amendments to a consolidation Bill to put in the Centigrade equivalent of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and I was told that it was such a revolutionary step that it could not be countenanced. The Amendments were negatived.
Now, the Minister says that this is mainly a consolidation Measure but that there are one or two changes. The two statements are incompatible. Either we are consolidating or we are not. If there are changes they should be subject to proper scrutiny, which is quite impossible in the present circumstances. If there have been changes over three or four months, it may be that more consultation would have revealed other things which might be thought desirable.
Like my hon. Friend, I see a sinister motive here. Possibly, in the coming months, when this matter comes up again, we shall be told that this was consolidated and fully debated back in October. I think that the Government have become greedy, rather in the same way that the Isle of Wight County Council was greedy over its Bill to deal with a little local difficulty. It seized the opportunity to throw everything into that Bill. Whether it was trying to save fees or not I do not know.
This is an abuse of the House, and of the accepted consolidation procedures. I do not know what my right hon. Friends have in mind, but I believe that some protest should be lodged about this treatment.

Mr. Denis Howell: As my hon. Friends have said, the House has been put in an impossible position. Local authorities and their associations have been put in an even more disgraceful position. We must protest about this.
I understand that these 11 pages of financial Amendments, which will dominate the whole future of this reorganised


local government, were first put down on the Thursday before last. The Minister has made great play of the fact that the local authority associations were informed. My information is that they were rung up and were told that the Government were tabling in the other place Amendments dealing with the financial provision. The associations immediately sent their messengers to the Stationery Office for copies of these 11 pages of Amendments. They found that none had been printed. It was not until the following Monday, eight days ago, that the great local authorities of this country were able to get copies. That in itself is a scandalous situation.
Local democracy works in this way. When local authority associations obtain Government proposals, they must consult their members. They have a number of experts, of course, whom they consult but all the members of the associations are entitled to be consulted. So, having obtained the information on Monday, they sent it out, which means that most of the local authorities would not have got it until Tuesday or Wednesday —less than a week ago.
Local authority treasurers do not sit waiting for Government pronouncements to drop on their desks so that they can consider them. But even if they were, these Amendments are most involved. It needs a great deal of study to determine their effect.
I was not surprised to be told today —nor was my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)—that many city and county treasurers are ringing in to say, "We are very sorry; Parliament may be discussing these matters for the last time this week, but we have not had the opportunity to work out the effect of these proposals on our local government finance." That is a scandalous state of affairs. The 11 pages of financial provisions which are before us, including the new Clauses, which appear in Lords Amendments Nos. 243 and 246, should not have been considered only on Report stage in the House of Lords. They should have a Second Reading and a Committee stage. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House that both new Clauses have received no Second Reading and no Committee stage. We are now in the impossible position that, if

we take exception to either of the new Clauses, nothing can be done about it.
We all know why we are in this plight. The Bill is far too ambitious. Far too much has been crammed into it. When the Bill was introduced a year ago, there should have been a separate Bill for Wales, for example. Apart from that, to put boundaries, functions, powers and financing in one Bill is, in parliamentary terms, an impossible proposition. Although we have been as co-operative as we can, many of the 250 Clauses and 30 Schedules have had to go through rapidly and without proper parliamentary examination.
Therefore, we must register our strong protest about the way in which the local authorities have been treated. We are not enamoured by the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman said that it is just consolidation. If that is so, why was not it introduced at a much earlier stage? Surely the hon. Gentleman has a whole army of civil servants behind him and he could have produced the consolidation proposals almost a year ago when the Bill was introduced. Somebody must have realised that if one reorganises the whole of local government in accordance with the Bill, one has to make certain financial provisions.
I understand that there are working groups in existence. There is a working group on grants, one on miscellaneous financial provisions and another on rates. They have a joint membership of Government representatives and local authorities. Not one of the working groups has been consulted about the detailed provisions of these proposals. That makes the situation even more ridiculous than perhaps hon. Members thought was so at an earlier stage.
The local authorities have been treated with the utmost arrogance by the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman do not personally wish to treat local authorities with that degree of arrogance. However, the danger is that we will have legislation in this matter by civil servants' decree. It appears that civil servants got together and decided that certain things would have to be done and that it would be nice to do it by consolidation. It appears that it was decided to slip these matters in at this stage when perhaps


nobody would be looking. The House will prorogue on Thursday, and we know that there is no time left to do anything about them. They will have to be accepted and the Government can use their great majority because they cannot risk being defeated. If matters were dealt with properly, we would send these Amendments back to another place so that they could be properly examined. We know that that will not happen, so we make the strongest possible protest about the way in which local authorities have been treated.
5.15 p.m.
I turn now to the specific Amendments which are causing us trouble. I recall what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development said in reply to the debate on Amendment 246. It took a long time to get from the right hon. Gentleman a proper appreciation of our concern and the concern of local authorities.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: We have not got it yet.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend says that we have not got it yet. I beg to differ. I think that we got it—at least, I hope so. The right hon. Gentleman properly told us that although two or more local authorities could combine in respect of their borrowing powers, the limitations in subsection (5) regarding what one local authority could borrow would be a multiple situation, and that that amount of money, multiplied by the number of local authorities combining, would represent their borrowing powers. On that strict assurance, we will not carry out our plan to vote against Amendment No. 246.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put that on record. I should also like to put on record that the right hon. Gentleman has nodded his assent to the position which I have just restated. It will satisfy my hon. Friends that the right hon. Gentleman was nodding assent.
We have heard nothing about Lords Amendment No. 243, which deals with the rate of interest at which local authorities can borrow money. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his first explanation

that it is one quarter per cent. above Treasury rate for 15 years, which is a long time. If local authorities may borrow at one quarter per cent. above Treasury rate for 15 years, that may be significant. Subsection (1) of the new Clause sets out the various Acts for which the money can be raised. First, there is Section 291(3) of the Public Health Act, 1936. Secondly, there is Section 10(2) of the Coast Protection Act, 1949. Thirdly, there is Section 10(6) of the Housing Act, 1957. Fourthly, there are three Sections of the Highways Act, 1959. Fifthly, there is Section 6(4) of the Housing Act, 1969. Finally, there is Section 23(5) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act, 1969.
Those are substantial local authority responsibilities and considerable sums of local authority moneys are involved. The problem which the local authority associations and the city treasurers face is to know whether the rate of one quarter per cent. above Treasury rate over 15 years is a fair rate for them to pay for all their responsibilities, including the Acts which I have just read.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that this is just consolidation. The local authorities fear that considerable financial burdens may be imposed upon them. It may be that their fears are misplaced. However, we do not think that is the case. As the local authorities have had the Amendments and the proposals in their hands for less than a week, they have not been able to work out the complicated financial sums which are necessary before they can draw intelligent conclusions. The local authorities rightly object to that situation. They also object to a Clause in a Lords Amendment, which deals with involved, complicated and important matters, which is being rushed through the House without an opportunity to put the matter right in another place. That is how we understand the situation.
I turn now from Lords Amendment No. 213 to Lords Amendment No. 246, since, with your customary indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with a whole range of financial matters and we on this side do not wish to have another major financial debate either today or tomorrow, with the one exception of Amendment No. 183, which deals with a specific point.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields asked what we are doing legislating in this way when we are due to have a wholesale reform of local finances and the Government's thinking on this matter put before the House almost immediately. This again puts us in an extraordinary situation. We are entitled tonight to know what the Government's thinking is. We have had Green Papers and White Papers and consultations with everybody. Surely the Government should now be able to come forward, in the concluding stages of legislation for, as they believe, the future of local government over the next 50 years, to tell us the principles on which they believe local government finances should be provided. A whole range of questions, some major, some minor, must be taken into account.
For example, there is the question of the rate support grant. We are now discussing 11 pages of financial provision for the Bill and we should know something about the future of the rate support grant. Do the Government intend it to go on as it is? How do they see it working in the new set-up? There is also the question of rating. There is a growing feeling, which I share, that the rating system is inequitable and unfair to a large number of people. Since we are discussing local government reform, we should be told something about that. There is also the question of the full rating of agriculture, a matter of very considerable importance. I do not want to stray too far, although the Minister seems to think that I am doing very well, but agricultural rating is a pertinent subject.

Mr. Graham Page: Why not send for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Howell: I think that we should send for him. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that observation.

Mr. John Silkin: I prefer the presence of the Minister of State for the Ministry of Agriculture to that of the Minister of Agriculture himself.

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) says that he would prefer the presence of the Minister of State to that of the Minister of Agriculture. So would every housewife. But the fact remains that for many years we have not had full agri-

cultural rating. Yet we have started to change the whole basis of our agriculture and will have to change its structure even more now that we are entering the EEC. What will flow from that in terms of rating relief for the agricultural industry? That is a major question affecting millions of people.

Mr. Graham Page: Where is this in the Clause?

Mr. Howell: Until seven days ago, nothing of this was in the Clause. We are entitled to point out that there are grave omissions even from the 11 pages of complicated legislation we are discussing now. We want to do the thing properly. The financial provisions contained in these Lords Amendments should have been in a separate Bill complementary to the Local Government Bill.
Then there is the question of rate rebates, which has not come up. There is dissatisfaction in many parts of the country with the present allowances and the present system. We should know the Government's thinking on that. Finally, there are all these additional forms of new local authority finance. When one is starting a totally new system of local government, surely that is the moment when one should get one's mind clear as to the new form of financing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been referring to many matters. He should not refer to them on this Amendment, although they are interesting topics.

Mr. Howell: You are the last man I wish to take issue with, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you know, especially as I am doing my best to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman. But, with respect, I must say that the House has been put in an impossible position. We have been given these 11 pages of legislation—new Clauses which have not had a Second Reading or been in Committee—and in my view their provision at this late stage in the Bill is an abomination to our parliamentary procedure. If these Clauses had had a Second Reading and a Committee stage, my remarks would have been pertinent and in order because it would have been proper then to move Amendments as a substitute for what is proposed here. We could at least have tested the climate


and found out what the Government had to say. It is in that sense that I am trying to rectify the impossible position in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, find yourself, just as we do. I am sorry for it. It is not your fault. However, in order to assist you, and having mentioned these various matters of finance and revenue, I will pass rapidly on.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is it not very important, in connection with these Lords Amendments, to know the Government's future intention as to how local authorities will raise money—for example, how much from borrowing and how much from revenue? Is there to be any change whereby local authorities are expected to raise more by borrowing powers for capital expenditure? All this is relevant.

Mr. Howell: That is a very pertinent intervention, but as I have already undertaken to move on I will not trespass further on your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But it is fair to say, in view of all the things contained in Amendment No. 243, and if the Government intend to amend this sort of provision, as we believe to be the case, that this must be the moment to consider the effects of any such changes.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State intends to reply. I hope that he will do so because I hope that he now has an appreciation of our feelings about the constitutional position of Members of this House, the way they have been treated, and the fact that we believe that we are having to suffer the indignities of these proposals at the very last hour because the Government wish to get this legislation through before Prorogation. We all have an understanding of that situation. All Governments are faced with it with some Bill or another. But in the 17 years I have been here, no other Government, in enacting such a major Bill, affecting every person in the country, have tried to rush it through in the last two or three days of a Session, with inadequate time for full examination of the consequences of late Amendments.
But even more important than the treatment of the House is the treatment of the local authorities, whether they be large or small. The Under-Secretary of State said that the Government had

received no representations following the message sent last week to the local authority associations. That comment was extremely revealing. He must know, and certainly his officials should, that no local authority could possibly consider these complicated proposals and make representations within the six effective days it has had them before our discussion today. It is a disgraceful situation, and in order to register our serious concern and disgust at the way in which local government and the House are being treated, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against Amendment No. 111.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for saying that the Opposition will not divide against Lords Amendment No. 246 because I am sure that they would not have been doing a good service to the local authorities had they done so.
We have perhaps loosely called this "consolidation". Perhaps we should properly have called it "codification". When the hon. Gentleman complains that he has not had a chance to debate the matter, he must know the lack of opportunity of debate on consolidation Bills. I have been rather rudely called on occasion the "consolidation king" because I have often stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box late at night endeavouring to say things on consolidation Bills. I had a pact with the previous Speaker that he could call me to order six times before I gave up. That is as much debate as one can get on a consolidation Bill. Had these proposals been included in a consolidation Bill, the hon. Gentleman would not have been able to make the speech he has just delivered.

Mr. John Silkin: But these proposals could not have been contained in a consolidation Bill because they embody changes.

Mr. Graham Page: That is why I said that we had rather loosely called it "consolidation" when we should have called it "codification". I will tell right hon. and hon. Members how it came about.
Throughout the long debates we have had over many months, we have appreciated that, with a great deal of the Local Government Act, 1933, there would


come the day of reckoning, as it were, in relation to what was left in it. I remind the Opposition that we obliged them on many points and amended the Act in this Bill. Eventually, the only matters left in the Act related to the borrowing powers, and, of course, it would be convenient to have all local government matters in one Bill so far as we could get them. We see no reason whatever for retaining the 1933 Act just to retain the borrowing powers, which were already getting a little out of date and a little tatty by reason of the many private Bills which local authorities have had.
Having decided to transfer these provisions from the 1933 Act and to take the Act off the Statute Book, it seemed ridiculous to put these borrowing powers into the Bill without the sort of Amendments which the local authorities wish. They are Amendments which appear in many private Bills. They are the standard forms of Amendment which local authorities have had to the general law over many years. So, with the one or two points which have been mentioned, we included these Clauses in the Bill. We appreciate that it was a short period of time in which to include them, but I am sure that it was the practical thing to do and that it will turn out to be most convenient for the local authorities. They will have it all in one Bill.
I do not find the difficulty in interpreting the provision giving power to combine with other local authorities for borrowing which the hon. Gentleman seems to find. It is clear to me that if a local authority has a certain borrowing limit one ought not to allow it to overstep that minimum by combining with other authorities—that the amount that a local authority gets out of a combined borrowing should be limited to its normal borrowing power. But the loan itself can be an accumulation of the borrowing powers of the local authorities concerned. For example, if three local authorities, each with a borrowing limit of £3 million, combine to borrow, the combined loan can be £9 million, but each local authority cannot receive more than its £3 million limit out of the loan.
I turn now to Lords Amendment No. 243, which I understand is the one on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to

divide the House. This Amendment refers to the rates to be charged by local authorities to those who owe them money. At one stage, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was arguing that it referred to the rates of interest to be paid by local authorities. That is not so. It concerns the rates to be charged by the local authorities.
The new Clause amends various existing enactments requiring the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument to determine the rate of interest chargeable by local authorities on money owed to them under those enactments. As they now stand, those enactments necessitate a Statutory Instrument whenever a significant change in the interest rate is required. The opportunity is now taken to bring the enactments into line with current practice—and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Agriculture Act, 1970 —by linking the rate of interest directly to that charged by the Public Works Loans Commission on local loans.
This change has been sought by local authorities from the Department for many years and we are obliging the local authorities by making it. I agree that we are also obliging the Department, because in future we shall be saved the trouble of producing Statutory Instruments, but we are obliging the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman does no service to them to divide the House against that Clause.

Mr. Denis Howell: I did not say that we were to divide against the Clause; I said that we should divide against Lords Amendment No. 111 as a token of our disgust with the way in which local authorities had been treated.
The right hon. Gentleman says that I do no service to local authorities, but I must tell him that I am raising this matter at the specific request of local authorities, which are concerned about the situation, particularly about the 15-year borrowing period. A combination of the ¼ per cent. above the Treasury rate for the services that I outlined and a 15-year borrowing period has caused them to ask whether this is fair, or whether it will merely be an additional burden on the ratepayers.
We shall not divide the House against Lords Amendment No. 243, because of the assurance that I believe to have been implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and rather more explicit in those


of the Under-Secretary. It was that if the fears were found to be well founded, the Government would take an early opportunity in forthcoming legislation to put the matter right. If the Minister is saying that if the concern of the authorities is found to be justified when they have had time to make a thorough examination, the Government will put the matter right, we shall not divide against the Government's proposals.

Mr. Graham Page: We think that we have it right, but if the local authorities make representations to say that we have not provided what they want—and the Clause is being enacted for them and no other purpose—we will amend it in the coming legislation on local government finance. By saying that I am also giving some form of assurance that there will be legislation on local government

finance. We have already committed ourselves in statements in that respect, but I cannot say what the date will be, or what the contents will be, or what that legislation will say about the difference between rates and borrowing money and so on. All that will come out when the Bill is presented.

There will shortly be an opportunity to discuss the rate support grant because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that debate occurs before Christmas. If he will be patient, we shall be able to go into the merits of the finance on the next Bill. Here we are merely doing a service to the authorities by providing what they want in connection with borrowing.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 160.

Division No. 348.]
AYES
[5.40 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Benyon, W.
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger 


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles


Bray, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Brewis, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T.L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cormack Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Costain A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen-Jack
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fell, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott, Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Sinclair, Sir George




Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Soref, Harold
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sproat, Iain
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Allen, Scholefield
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orme, Stanley


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Paget, R. T.


Blaker, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Pardoe, John


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest G.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, Ted


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Latham, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Fred
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellzman, David


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 69

VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS UNDER PART IV

Lords Amendment: No. 114, in page 52, line 10, to leave out from "by" to "may" and insert "a county council".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I had intended to advise the House that this was a drafting Amendment, but after my reception in the last debate, perhaps I should explain it fully.
As drafted the words
by the council of an existing administrative county


failed to take account of orders made by the councils of former administrative counties whose areas now form part of larger counties, such as the former county of the Soke of Peterborough, since 1965 part of the present administrative county of Huntingdon and Peterborough. This is because "existing" means "existing at the time of the passing of the Act".
The Amendment repairs this fault by substituting "a county council", so that the words will bite on all orders regardless of when they were made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72

ACCRETIONS FROM THE SEA, ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 115, in page 53, line 10, leave out "1st April 1974" and insert:
the passing of this Act".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This again is largely a drafting matter. The new local government areas are defined in terms of areas as they exist at the date of the passing of the Act. The new words bring the provisions regarding the treatment of accretions from the sea into line with this, instead of applying them only to accretions occurring after 1st April, 1974.
This may be over-cautious but we feel it is better to be safe than sorry.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 79

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AND HOLD- ING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY

Lords Amendment: No. 118, in page 56, line 38, after "if" insert:
he is a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and ".

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient if we discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 119.
The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the law to its present position under the Local Government Act, 1933. Under that for a person to be qualified to stand for election to local government he must be a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. Secondly, the Amendment restores the present position by making clear that, having been elected, he must retain that qualification throughout the period while he is a member of the council.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80

DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY

Lords Amendment: No. 120, in page 57, line 32, after "election" insert:
or since his election".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment to remove a slight lacuna in Clause 80(1)(c). Under the present law relating to audit in Part X of the Local Government Act, 1933 a person who is surcharged for an amount exceeding £500 is disqualified from being a member of a local authority for five years.
New audit arrangements are being introduced by the Bill and disqualification may still follow where a member has been responsible for authorising unlawful expenditure or has been responsible for loss as a result of wilful misconduct. The new audit arrangements do not come into operation immediately; they will not apply until the financial year 1974–75.
It is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of any disqualification where this results from a surcharge under the 1933, a person who is surcharged for an fication period—or any unexpired portion of it—applies after the new audit arrangements have come into force.
Clause 80(1)(c) is aimed at this point but does not do the job completely satisfactorily. It prevents a person from standing as a member of a local authority if he has been surcharged for a sum


exceeding £500 before the date of the election but it does not cover the person who has been elected to a local authority before the new audit arrangements come into force but who may still be surcharged under the 1933 Act after his election. This could possibly happen in connection with the audit of accounts for 1973–74 which will not be completed until after the elections for the new authorities which will take place in April, May and June of 1973. The effect of the Amendment is to plug this small gap.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreea to.

Clause 93

DISABILITY OF MEMBERS OF AUTHORITIES FOR VOTING ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN CONTRACTS, ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 127, in page 67, line 23, at end insert:
(5) The following, that is to say—

(a) the receipt by the chairman, vice-chairman or deputy chairman of a principal council of an allowance to meet the expenses of his office or his right to receive, or the possibility of his receiving, such an allowance;
(b) the receipt by a member of a local authority of an allowance or other payment under any provision of sections 168 to 171 below or his right to receive, or the possibility of his receiving, any such payment;

shall not be treated as a pecuniary interest for the purposes of this section.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to Clause 93 which introduces the subject of "pecuniary interest" which a member of an authority must disclose. Unless he is exempt by virtue of Clause 96 he may not speak or vote on a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest, which is defined in Clause 94.
It would clearly not be right that a member should be prevented from taking a full part in the proceedings because he is either receiving an allowance because of his official duties as chairman, vice-chairman or deputy chairman, or because he is receiving an allowance for the performance of what we call in the Bill "approved duties".
The Amendment ensures that members are not disabled from taking decisions on the appropriate rates for all the allowances and payments provided for in Clauses 4(4) and 6(4) in relation to the payment of an allowance to the chairman and so on, and in Clauses 168–171, which deal with performance of approved duties. The Amendment does not merely enable members to speak and vote on these matters even though they are receiving the allowances, it also removes the need to disclose their pecuniary interest. To retain this and the associated requirement to have disclosures recorded would, in the circumstances, be quite absurd. The existence of an interest is quite obvious. If he is a councillor he is receiving an allowance and this will be publicly known. There is no need even to require him to disclose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agree to.

Schedule 12

MEETINGS AND PROCEEDINGS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 137, in page 262, line 43, at end insert:
(2A) The annual meeting of a parish council shall be held at such hour as the council may fix or, if no hour is so fixed, 6 o'clock in the evening.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that it would be convenient if we discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 145.
This Amendment provides that the annual meetings of parish or community councils shall be held at 6 p.m. unless the council decides otherwise. This is a new provision and I think an important one for this level of local government. It is paralleled by existing provisions which are being continued, providing that annual meetings of principal councils shall be held at noon unless the council decides otherwise. It would be wrong to make that provision apply to parish councils.
Obviously, most parish councils meet in the evenings, when it is most convenient. If they do not want to meet then but during the day they can pass a resolution to that effect. In the absence of such a resolution relating to their annual meetings it is right to provide that the annual meeting should be at 6 o'clock in the evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 99

ADMISSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS TO LOCAL AUTHORITY MEETINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 151, in page 69,line 41, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 42 and insert:
For the purpose of securing the admission, so far as practicable, of the public (including the press)".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to complete the sense of Clause 99 as it now stands in its amended form. The Amendment was accidentally not put to this House after it had been debated. I am afraid that it was a slip for which I take responsibility when we were last before the House on Report. It somehow did not get put to the House and we are putting that error right now.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May I take this opportunity of welcoming this provision? We had some anxieties at one stage that there would not be a real acceptance of the position of the Press and public at meetings. This has been cleared up now with a reasonable kind of compromise.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 152, in page 70, line 6, leave out from "apply" to "any" in line 7 and insert "to any committee constituted under an enactment specified in paragraphs (c) to (h) of section 100(9) below and to".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) I rather

feel he was thinking of this Amendment rather than Lords Amendment No. 151, which was a paving Amendment. I will deal with this a little more fully, because it is an important matter and it is one on which we have met objections put by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) to the Clause as originally amended.
The intention of Clause 99 is to extend the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960, to all meetings of local authority committees. At present, it applies only to meetings of local authorities at which they are obliged under certain circumstances to admit the Press and public and to certain committee meetings such as the meetings of the education committee. The intention of Clause 99 is to provide that all committee meetings of the local authority should be open to the public, and therefore to the Press, unless certain steps are taken to exclude them from the meetings.
As drafted the Clause applies to any committee appointed by one or more local authorities under Clause 101, not being a committee falling within Section 2(1) of the 1960 Act. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the Clause applies to those committees which the House will find listed in Clause 100(9). To some extent, it is a technical Amendment, a matter of the right way to refer to all committees of local authorities. The position is that Clause 100 and Clause 101 extend local authorities' discretion to make arrangements for the discharge of any of their functions by a committee and to appoint committees for this purpose. This more flexible machinery replaces the existing statute law on committees with certain important exceptions which are listed in Clause 100(9) under which certain existing statutory requirements to appoint committees are retained.
The Amendment is necessary in order to apply Clause 99 to the local authority committees listed in paragraphs (c) to (h) of Clause 100(9). It was feared that, without the Amendment, Clause 99 would not apply to those committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 153, in page 70, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment also relates to the admission of the public and Press to local authority committee meetings. It removes from Clause 99 the provision in subsection (3) which would have enabled a local authority to decide in advance to close to the public the meetings of any particular committee for periods of up to 12 months at a time if it considered that much the greater part of the business to be transacted was such that closure would be justified on grounds identical to those set out in the 1960 Act where that Act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting. The deletion of subsection (4) is consequential on the deletion of subsection (3).
The 12 months' exclusion provision was intended for committees dealing mainly with business which needed privacy, and it was thought, when we first presented the Clause on Report, that this would be a convenient form for the local authorities to arrange for the exclusion of the Press from those committees normally dealing with business of privacy. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) criticised the provision on the ground that it would defeat the object of the Clause and that if the local authority was given power to pass a resolution lasting for 12 months there was the danger that it would be exercised extravagantly.
I accept, having studied the matter, that a resolution should be put, not to cover the period of 12 months, but at each meeting. Recurrent business requiring privacy can be conducted by sub-committees. We thought originally that it would be right to require the Press to be admitted to sub-committees, but on reconsideration we removed that provision but left in the 12-month resolution provision. I think that that was wrong and it has been put right in another place. Advance warning of possible closure can be given in the statutory public notice of a meeting and of the agenda of that meeting and thereby the Press and public may be warned that if they appear in order to attend the meeting they may well be faced with this resolution at the outset.
It must be conceded that power to close the proceedings of a committee for up

to 12 months could easily be used to exclude the public permanently from the committee and thereby defeat the purpose of the Clause. The practical point will still remain that it will be necessary under the 1960 Act to give public notice of the time and place of a meeting even though it is proposed to pass a resolution straight away to close the doors to the public. That notice will still have to be given. It is possible that this situation would arise with the public notice of a council meeting or of an education committee meeting. So this provision is nothing new. It may be a nuisance to have to do it, but I think that it carries out the spirit of the Act to state on the public notice whether there is to be a resolution to close the meeting and to take that resolution for every meeting.
If experience shows it to be desirable, authorities can indicate the possibility of closure in appropriate cases in the public notice. I do not think that there will be very great inconvenience for the public or Press in doing that. I think that the weight of advantage is on the side of putting some difficulty in the way of local authorities taking the opportunity to exclude the public and Press.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 154, page 71, line 13, leave out "arrangement" and insert "arrangements".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 155 and 156.
These are drafting Amendments. Everywhere else in the Clause we referred to "arrangements" but in these cases the word "arrangement" was used. We might as well be consistent throughout the Clause.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Although these are purely drafting Amendments, it is right that I should utter the warning that many local authorities are still unhappy about the agency arrangements for which the Clause provides. Therefore, we shall


take the opportunity, on later Amendments, of raising specific cases which illustrate the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 157, in page 72, line 28, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
(c) sections 2 and 3 of the Police Act 1964 (police committees).

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will perhaps be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 159, after Clause 105, in page 75, line 44, at end insert new Clause B:

Application of foregoing provisions to police authorities.

B.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—
(a) sections 100 to 102 and 105 above shall apply to a police authority other than tie Secretary of State as they apply to a local authority;
(b) sections 103 and 104 above shall apply both to a police authority and a committee of any such authority or authorities as they apply to a committee of a local authority or authorities;

and in their application to the Common Council as police authority those sections shall have effect subject to those provisions.
(2) A police authority may not arrange for the discharge of their functions by another police authority, and section 100(1)(b) and (3) above shall not apply to a police authority.
(3) The officers who may discharge the functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 100(1), 12) or (5) above shall include the chief officer of police, his deputy while performing his duties and any civilian officer employed for the purposes of the police authority or one of the police authorities.
(4) A police authority may not arrange under section 100 above for the discharge of their functions by a committee or officer as respects part only of their area.
(5) Section 100(10) above shall not apply to a police authority.
(6) Any committee appointed under section 101 above for discharging the functions of one or more police authorities (including any subcommittee) shall consist only of members of the appointing authority or authorities and section 101(3) above shall not apply to committees of police authorities.
(7) Section 102 above, in its application to a joint committee of police authorities, shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted the words "by the Secretary of State".

(8) A person shall not be disqualified by virtue of section 103 above for being a member of a police authority or the committee (or any sub-committee) of any such authority or authorities by virtue of his holding any office or employment, except employment for the purposes of the police authority or one of the police authorities.
(9) Section 105 above shall not authorise any county council to make standing orders with respect to the quorum, proceedings or place of meeting of a police authority.
(10) For the purposes of this section the following persons shall be treated as employed for the purposes of a police authority, that is to say—

(a) any person employed under section 10 of the Police Act 1964 for police purposes of the police authority's area; and also
(b) in the case of a combined police authority, any person whose services are made available for the use of that authority in pursuance of section 4(5) of that Act."

Amendment No. 157 is a drafting Amendment. The more important Amendment is No. 159, which introduces a new Clause. The effect of the new Clause is to apply Clauses 100 to 105 to police authorities. Those Clauses provide for power to be given to local authorities to delegate the discharge of their functions. The new Clause, by applying those provisions to police authorities, gives police authorities the power also to delegate their functions. At the moment there is a limited power to combined police authorities to delegate functions. There are no powers for a county policy authority to delegate its functions.

The new Clause is long—it has 10 subsections—because it is necessary not only to provide the power to delegate but to adapt the provisions of Clauses 100 to 105 to make them appropriate for police authorities. Some of the powers of delegation available to local authorities will not be suitable for a police authority whose statutory responsibilities are separate from those of a local authority. The County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations have been consulted and they support what is proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It was difficult to catch the sentence in which the Minister of State referred to the question of consultation. I take it that he did not refer to any consultation with the Police Federation?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: No. I said that the proposal had the approval of the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. This provision deals only with the police authority and the committee of magistrates or local councillors and relates to the delegation of powers by that committee to subcommittees. It is in no way affects the day-to-day running of the police force by the chief constable.
Subsection (1) of the new Clause merely provides that the powers to delegate should apply to police authorities. Subsection (2) makes it clear that a police authority may not arrange to delegate its functions to another police authority or to another local authority, because Section 4(1) of the Police Act makes each police authority responsible for maintaining an adequate and efficient police force for its area and that responsibility cannot properly be delegated to a police authority for another area. If it appears to two conjoining police authorities that they wish to police their areas as one, they should submit to the Secretary of State for his approval in the normal way a scheme for the amalgamation of those forces. The effect of the subsection is to provide that one police authority cannot arrange for the whole of its functions to be delegated to another police authority.
Subsection (4) provides that a police authority may not arrange
… for the discharge of their functions by a committee…as respects part only of their area".
Under Clause 100 a local authority can set up a committee with responsibilities limited to a geographical area. The purpose of this provision is to prevent—and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) will appreciate this point—a county from hiving off part of the county and saying that it will be policed by a police authority in another area.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who I know is concerned about this matter, that police authorities will have the benefit of Clause 101(1)(b) which will enable them to appoint joint committees. We have particularly in mind the possibility that they will want to appoint joint committees for such matters as planning and

the policing of motorways. Subsection (4) of the new Clause in no way prevents collaboration between police authorities for the joint provision of
premises, equipment or other material of facilities".
Such collaboration is specifically provided for in Section 13(2) of the Police Act, 1964, which provides:
If it appears to any two or more police authorities that any premises, equipment or other material or facilities can with advantage be provided jointly for the police forces maintained by those authorities, they may make an agreement for that purpose".
All that subsection (4) does is to prevent an area committee from discharging police authority functions in that particular area. There is nothing to stop a police authority setting up a committee or a joint committee with other police authorities to plan for and to advise on communications or buildings for an area. What a police authority cannot do is to delegate to an area committee the actual discharge of its functions in a particular geographical area. I should say to the hon. Gentleman, since I know that this is a point which he wants me specifically to deal with, that there is nothing in the new Clause which would prevent the use by two or more of the new police authorities of the facilities of an existing authority, and nothing to prevent the facilities of a new police authority from being used over the part of the area of another police authority.
Those are probably the major subsections, but perhaps I could just say that subsection (3) defines the officers to whom the functions of a police authority may be delegated. The local authority has power to delegate to its police officers and subsection (3) provides who those officers shall be.
Subsection (5) deletes Clause 100(10) which would have prevented delegation by a specialist committee of its powers. A police authority is such a committee.
Subsection (6) makes it clear that the statutory functions of a police authority can be discharged only by members of the authority. In other words, it will ensure that any committee, either of one police authority or made up from members of more than one police authority, will have to consist wholly of members of the appointing authority although it does not prevent the police authority from


including non-members on purely advisory committees.
Subsection (7) provides for payments to be apportioned between the authorities concerned on any joint committee.
I do not think there is anything further I need refer to in the new Clause. As I say, basically it provides a power, which is felt to be useful and which has not existed before, for a police authority to delegate its work to other committees; it does that by giving it similar powers as local authorities have. It amends certain particulars which have to be adapted to make them appropriate to the work of police authorities.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The House is indebted to the Minister of State for his customary courtesy in describing this Clause, which is quite a new Clause introduced by another place, and for explaining it in detail and going through it subsection by subsection, because it is a most important Clause, particularly for the police.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman stressed at the outset of his remarks, this is a Clause which gives provision to police authorities to use agency powers under Clauses 100 to 105 of the Bill. That may have been the intention originally, and I will acept that, but there are two subsections of the new Clause which effectively bolt the door on any effective agency agreements. I refer to subsections (2) and (4) and it is those with which we on this side of the House are concerned.
Subsection (2) states that
A police authority may not arrange for the discharge of their functions by another police authority, and section 100(1)(b) and (3) above shall not apply to a police authority.
That subsection does not say, as the Minister of State said, "the whole of their functions"—of a police authority" to another police authority". It says "their functions". The first question, therefore, is whether that really means the whole of the police authority's functions. If so, why does it not say so? Or does it mean the whole or any part of the functions? That would be a much more serious matter.
Subsection (4), to which the Minister of State rightly drew attention, is another bolting of the door, so far as I can see,

on co-operation between police authorities, because that states:
A police authority may not arrange under section 100 above for the discharge of their functions by a committee or officer as respects part only of their area.
These two subsections refer to precisely the sort of co-operation that police authorities will seek to have between themselves and, so far from opening the door to agency arrangements under Clauses 100 to 105, this is a closing of the door to any arrangements between them.
As the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend and the whole House know, there have been long debates in this House on the police. This Clause shows what many of us have been saying for a long time: that police powers and functions are not strictly speaking a local government function and, therefore, ought not to have been disturbed in the way they have by the Bill. The hybrid nature of this Clause in providing different laws for police authorities and for other local authorities is ample evidence of what we on this side have been saying for a long time. We have been concerned, and hon. Members on the Government side have been concerned, and police forces throughout the country, and particularly police officers, have been concerned, about the very disruptive effects which the Bill is having and will have on police authorities and police manpower.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government have gone some way to alleviate some of the fears by a concession which I greatly appreciate, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me last Thursday in reply to a Question of mine, that Rule 23 will apply to amalgamations or to the breaking up of police areas just as it does to the breaking up of boroughs at the present time.
For many months officers of all ranks, particularly sergeants and chief constables, have been concerned with the problem of manpower. In Lancashire in particular, the police force is very concerned about what the Government are doing, in effect breaking up into six parts what I and many hon. Members consider to be the most effective and the most efficient police force in the country. I want in particular to look at the effects of the new Clause in the area I know


best and the police authority I know best, that of Lancashire.
It may be that the police authority, and let us take Lancashire as an example, may decide—it is its decision, not the decision of this House—for the best and most efficient policing of the area that it would be appropriate, at least for a transitional period, immediately after 1974, for a part of its area to be given over completely to be policed by another force. I can see that sort of thing happening in many parts of the country. It may not be a permanent arrangement, not an arrangement for all time, but, when the Bill comes into force, for a transitional length of time.
It could be, for instance—I am not saying that this would happen—that Cumbria, which is quite a small force, might well decide that for a period of time it would be for the most efficient policing of the area if that part of Lancashire which will go into Cumbria were to be administered and policed by the Lancashire force. Why should it not make that decision if it is for the best policing of the area? Subsection (4) debars it from doing so. Cheshire police authority might decide that that part of Lancashire which comes into Cheshire would be best administered by the Merseyside police. I am not saying that it would make that decision, but subsection (4) debars it from making such a decision. This argument could apply to areas all over the country.
I think it quite wrong for this House or another place to lay it down to police authorities that agency arrangements which apply, particularly over the transitional period, to other aspects of local government shall not apply to police authorities.
The Minister of State referred to "the whole of their functions", but I wish that the Clause itself mentioned the whole of their functions rather than "their functions". The phrase "their functions" could include the whole or part of them.
Although the Minister of State said that joint committees could be set up to deal with motorways, communications and so on between various police authorities and that neighbouring police authorities could use one another's facilities, it might be assumed from subsection (2) that that could not happen. It would be mon-

strous if police authorities could not enter into arrangements for the better and more efficient policing of their areas.
6.30 p.m.
During the Summer Recess I took the opportunity to visit the police headquarters at Hutton in Lancashire, where I saw the tremendous work being carried out by the Lancashire police force. Indeed, I believe that the Minister of State paid a visit to that headquarters two days before me. I also heard comments by, and sensed the bitterness of, people who, having built up a supreme force, were facing the prospect of that force being divided six ways—for what, to them, was no apparent reason.
When I was at Hutton I saw the communications room, a large part of which was concerned with motorways. The motorways, mainly the M6, are patrolled in the main by Cheshire and Lancashire and some will be patrolled by Cumberland and Westmorland forces. In future it looks as though the motorways will be patrolled by Cheshire, Lancashire, greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cumbria. The communications room at Hutton takes into its ambit the whole of the motorway. Will this enormous communications channel be broken up and divided among other constituent authorities? It will be quite wrong for this to happen because it will needlessly destroy an excellent organisation.
At Hutton I saw the criminal records department in which Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire at present combine their operations. With the advent of large computers, I should like to see even larger areas combining in this work —areas such as Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside, greater Manchester and others. This is essential because criminals do not operate within any given police area; they have a habit of crossing police boundaries—boundaries which they do not recognise at all except in their own advantage. I saw the tremendous advances in photographic work which had been achieved at Hutton. It is the only police force which produces colour photographs for the courts, and they are accepted by the courts. There is an extremely competent staff in the photographic laboratory and they are proud of the work they do. That work will be broken up when this organisation is split


between Liverpool, Merseyside, Cumbria, Cheshire and Lancashire. Cannot the authorities combine in this activity and continue the work instead of each area having its own inferior photographic laboratory?
I also visited the training school for Lancashire police. Last week I was told by the Minister of State that the training schools were run by the Home Office, but I would tell him that this training school was run by Lancashire for Lancashire police officers. It would be an admirable training school if it were used for Lancashire, Merseyside, Cumbria and Manchester and if all the facilities were run together. Under subsection (2) of the Clause, will that activity be a function or part of the function of another police authority which it will be debarred from carrying out?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member must not be unduly alarmist. The new Clause in no way affects the power already contained in Section 13(2) of the Police Act, 1964, that
If it appears to any two or more police authorities that any premises, equipment or other material or facilities can with advantage be provided jointly for the police forces maintained by those authorities, they may make an agreement for that purpose.
I visited the training college of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken the day before he did and I addressed a training course there. That course included officers not only of Lancashire but from other forces. There is no power for police authorities to delegate their functions within their areas, but they can make arrangements to send officers to other forces. The provision gives power to individual police authorities to work through committees.

Mr. Oakes: That is the position at the moment. I am looking at the effect of subsection (2) of the Clause. The fear is that the wording could be construed to prevent that sort of agreement under the Police Act being carried out in future. This involves the right of a police authority to say that, at least for the time being, it would be advisable for its area to be policed by another police authority until the magic date of 1974 has passed and until it has sufficient resources to combine. The police authorities should not be rushed into

making a decision. Indeed, the police authorities feel badly treated by the Bill. They feel that policemen's arms are being twisted behind their backs by this legislation. I am seeking to prevent a situation in which the new Clause will "put the boot in" against policemen as well as twist their arms up their backs.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I shall be brief. I have a personal interest in the Amendments since I am Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), I readily acknowledge the unfailing courtesy of the Minister of State in explaining his case. I believe that the Minister's policy is profoundly mistaken and flies in the face of operational efficiency, perhaps even more so now than when we first discussed police reorganisation on Report.
It is much to the credit of the Police Federation that its case against the Government's policy was argued mainly on grounds of operational efficiency. There are other important implications, not least in matters of welfare and other matters of direct concern to police personnel.
I appreciate that in recent days the Government have made a statement about Regulation 23. It may be that the Minister of State will feel that he should now say more about the questions of welfare in the police service. This problem, coupled with the urgent and serious question of police pay, makes current relations between police officers and their employers extremely sensitive. Many police officers feel that they are being unnecessarily pushed around. They are asking why they should always be left out of meaningful consultations. I am sure the Minister of State would agree that there was no attempt at meaningful consultation with the federation before this reorganisation was announced.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is now raising matters of police pay and reorganisation which, with respect, have nothing to do with this Amendment. However, I should like to repeat that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), when Home Secretary, saw the Police Federation on two separate occasions on the matter of reorganisation. We have debated this matter on previous occasions, and suffice it to say that we did


not accept the federation's argument for a regional police force. The Government decided, against the views of the federation, that the police force should remain a local force. It does not do the Police Federation's case any good for the hon. Gentleman to say that there was no consultation. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary saw that body on two occasions to discuss that specific issue. I concede that the Government came out against it, but it is wrong to say that there were no talks.
On the question of amalgamation, does the hon. Gentleman feel that, the decision having been taken, it is not more important now to do what the Police Federation is doing—that is to say, to discuss the detailed carrying out of the policy, which it now accepts, rather than to rake over the whole ground again as to whether we were wise to retain the police forces on a local basis?

Mr. Alfred Morris: What I said was that there was no meaningful consultation with the Police Federation before the Government announced their policy. After they had announced their policy, they resisted all the representations made by the federation.
The Minister of State must accept that there was serious disquiet at this year's annual conference of the federation. His right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was at the conference and heard the serious misgivings of officers of the federation about the proposed reorganisation. The Minister of State may feel that there was consultation, but I for my part say that it was consultation after the event and after the Government had made up their mind. Some members of the Government say to employers in general that they should try to consult employees before decisions are taken. It seems to me that one hand of the Government does not know what the other hand is doing. The Police Federation feels that it was not consulted before the Government made up their mind to pursue this policy. Police officers feel very strongly that they are being needlessly pushed around.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be making a great mistake if he fails to understand the strength of feeling among over 100,000 policemen on the question of reorganisation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring his remarks back to the Amendment, which is much narrower than his present theme.

Mr. Morris: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to answer the intervention made by the Minister of State.
This Amendment provides an opportunity for the House to recognise that there is widespread disquiet in the police service about the reorganisation. I hope that at the end of the debate right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will acknowledge this disquiet.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Lancashire and Bristol not only have a common problem of chief rents or rent charges but also a problem of police reorganisation. Subsection (4) of the Clause, Lord Champion pointed out in another place, effectively and firmly closes the door against the retention of existing authorities. I must place on record the deep disquiet in the Bristol area over this situation.
The Minister said on Report that it was necessary for the new authorities to be coterminous with the new county councils when formed. This creates a problem for us, because we have urban experience in Bristol and there is rural experience in the remainder of Avon. We have had fairly firm assurances from the Government that fairly soon metropolitan status will be considered. Therefore, while we welcome the statements about Regulation 23, there is still worry in the Bristol force that promotion will go to those who are prepared to move and that people with urban experience who want to stay in an urban setting, and who would be ideal officer material for that metropolitan setting, will suffer as a result of their independence and their desire to stay in Bristol.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: With the leave of the House, may I first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and repeat that with regard to training, for example, what the Clause would not allow is one authority to delegate the whole of its responsibilities for training to another authority. It certainly would not prevent it from setting up a joint committee on which it was represented for the purpose of making use of


the facilities for training. We are providing new powers for a local police authority to send people to another county for training purposes.
What the Clause does is to prevent a police authority saying "Although Parliament has passed an Act which provides for new boundaries of police forces, we shall delegate the functions for policing this area to the old police force". That is what the hon. Gentleman basically wants to do, and that is prevented. If we gave merely the power to delegate without preventing that, it would mean that police authorities, without any consultation with the Secretary of State, could create entirely their own amalgamations, and in the final analysis could presumably create a national police force. Under the hon. Gentleman's argument they could do so, whereas it has always been accepted that the boundaries of police authorities and the type of policing are a matter for this House.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that he fought a great battle on police reorganisation but lost. All that the Lords Amendment does is to provide additional flexibility to police authorities, but it has provisos which prevent them from trying to defeat the new boundary proposals which the House accepted. If the hon. Gentleman accepts, as I am sure he does, the decision taken in both Houses on that matter, he will agree that the Amendment merely adds flexibility to police authorities.
To the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), as a person for whom I have great respect in all our dealings, I repeat that it is a little unfair to take the opportunity of the Amendment to try to launch an attack on the Government for their decision about reorganisation of the police force. I am sure he will concede that I have never tried to minimise the disquiet that I knew was felt by individual officers in individual areas. It is for that reason that, having taken the decision, we immediately went into consultation with the Police Federation about such things as Regulation 23. As I tried to point out on Report, however, the Government decided that the police were to remain linked to local authorities and, therefore, that their boundaries should be coterminous with the new counties. I know

that the hon. Gentleman does not like that decision, but it is unfair to suggest that we took it regardless of the police. We did not. We have been very conscious that it was not a popular decision with individual policemen in the areas concerned, for the various reasons expressed then. We have tried to meet as far as we could what we considered to be their legitimate complaints.
The hon. Member for Widnes talks about the bitterness of the Lancashire force. I realise that police officers there are distressed at its being divided up. The hon. Gentleman has probably pointed out to many of the senior officers to whom he has spoken, as I did, that as recently as 1967 many of the individual forces were complaining bitterly about the creation of the Lancashire force, their departure from which they now bitterly regret. Many of them accept, and I think many other people would accept, that the appropriate amalgamation of police forces at that stage was probably very nearly the one now reached—a force based on Lancashire and forces based on the metropolis of Manchester and the metropolis of Liverpool.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I had no intention of being unfair, and I acknowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman's unfailing courtesy. But my recollection of the Minister when he was in opposition is that he used every opportunity to express his viewpoint in parliamentary debates, and he will accept that I must be allowed the same freedom.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the hon. Gentleman will of course state his viewpoints at every opportunity. I was really only saying that if I tried to answer in full I suspected that I might be told by the Chair that what I was saying went rather wide of the Amendments, and I hope that it would not be thought by members of the Police Federation that I in any way accepted the hon. Gentleman's strictures by my inability to answer them in full.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I agree with Opposition Members about the enormous disquiet felt among police forces. It is all very well for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to say that he hopes we will not rake over the past, but in Committee the matter led to perhaps the most contentious Division we had. It was only on the


casting vote of the Chairman that the Government won the day. I hoped that the Government would have second thoughts when the matter was discussed in another place. They did not, and I think that the new Clause is more intransigent than the previous provision. There is such a thing as consistency. I voted against the Government in Committee and on Report, and I must do so again tonight.

Mr. Oakes: With the leave of the House, may I say that I welcome some of the Minister's arguments in reply to mine. There remains, however, the fact that under subsection (2) police authorities cannot, even though it is in the

interests of police efficiency, enter into an arrangement with another police authority for part of their area. I wish them to have this power, not to defeat Parliament but so that at least they shall have transitional provisions to allow them to get on with the job that they know best how to do.

For those reasons, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the matter.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 144.

Division No. 349.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Green, Alan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Parkinson, Cecil


Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord
Hall-Davis A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Body, Richard
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brewis, John
James, David
Rost, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M) Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Cockeram, Eric
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Cordle, John
Lane, David
Sproat, Iain


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Davies, Rt. Hn John (Knutsford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dykes, Hugh
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tl[...]-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fidler, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wiggin, Jerry


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and




Mr. Marcus Fox.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King


Atkinson, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Bidwell, Sydney
Horam, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paget, R. T.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamborn, Harry
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lawson, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Wellbeloved, James


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Milne, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th October], That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question again proposed.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When the debate was adjourned a week ago I had just arrived at

the question of cleanliness and spillages which had been discussed a good deal concerning the Bill. The debate was adjourned at the point where I had information upon which the Special Committee of another place recommended the Bill to go forward, namely, when it said that
evidence was given by the promoters that in 1970 the Shell Company handled 65 million tons of oil, involving 1,000 ships, through 16 single buoy moorings around the world with two recorded incidents of spillage.
The Further Special Report which the House of Lords had to issue when it found that Shell had not been telling the truth, with regard to Durban alone, said:
The worst offender has been the s.b.m. at Durban which, since it began operations in September, 1970, has had 26 spillages totalling 57 tons.


Therefore, having said there were only two incidents around the world, Shell had to admit there were 26 at Durban alone. This was later increased, as we shall see.
To my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who will be adducing evidence regarding Durban, I should say that Durban is not the only single buoy mooring upon which unsatisfactory evidence is available. Another is the Kawasaki terminal in Japan. Looking at the evidence of Captain Overschie, to whom we referred a week ago, regarding the Kawasaki terminal, one sees that he was asked:
Q. If you then go to the Kawasaki table on the next page and on the following page, that terminal has been in operation for three years, has it not? … A. Yes, 1969.
Q. And there have been, I make it, some 30 spillages during that time? A. Yes.
Q. Of those six were due to human error and 24 to mechanical failure of some kind or another, both of which events happened in spite of Shell taking all care that their employees did not allow the spillage to occur, in spite of the fact that they took all care to see that plant or machinery was properly maintained, and in spite of the fact that they used all care to see that it was properly designed. Is that right? A. Yes, indeed.
So it was admitted that at Kawasaki alone there were 30 spillages.
Let us look at Durban of which so much has been made. I adduce only the facts. I do not adduce any comment on those facts from anybody else. Captain Overschie was questioned again on day three.
Then if you go on until you come to the Durban figures there have been recorded there 27 incidents of spillage. Is that right? That terminal has been in operation for just over a year. Is that right? A. That is correct—a year and a half now.
Let us look again at another question:
I am putting to you that whereas Captain Macdonald said that these faults"—
the faults in the Durban mooring—
had been eliminated, in fact at Durban they have not been eliminated, have they? Can you find the Durban chart? The last entry is: '9th April, 1972, No. 2 hose section of south underwater hose string.' Is that not right? A. Yes.
Captain Overschie admitted spillages at Durban. So we have more information about Durban, but let us have still more information about Durban. Captain Overschie was asked:

"Q. Do you know that on 8th March of this year at Durban there was another incident of spillage? A. If it is not recorded here then I am not aware of it.
Q. No, it is not recorded there. Once again I ask permission to put in a Press report of a statement made by Mr. Wilson, manager of the SBM at Durban.
There is then an extremely circumstantial account extending over half a page with which I shall not weary the House about yet another spillage at Durban which was not recorded in Shell's official records.
Captain Overschie was asked:
"Q. That incident is not mentioned in these records? A. I do not know.
Q. That stimulates one to ask how many more spillages there have been which have not found their way into the records. Is it not a fair question? A. I can only say that the records as they have been tabulated or presented have been taken from the official records of the operating companies.
Q. One wonders how carefully the records have been kept and whether Shell has ever kept any proper records of oil spillages? A. I can only speak for my company. I keep very careful records in respect of every incident and a complete account is given of what has happened.
Despite these records and this complete account, the fact is that incidents or spillage not recorded by Shell kept on coming to light.
What is more, another was admitted by counsel for the Bill on day four when he said:
The Shell Company in London telexed South Africa for a further return of incidents involving any spillage in 1972, and the telex in reply brought to light another incident of spillage, of which I make a free gift to my friend on 6th March of a similar kind involving less than 24 gallons, and that too will be added by Amendment to the schedule.
That was another one not admitted by Shell.
There is yet another. Right at the end of the proceedings on day six, there was an admission by Shell of a yet further spillage. Throughout we see that Shell, having said first of all that there were only two spillages around the world, was forced to admit others which had not been brought to light due to its total lack of frankness—if one can say that that is all it is.
The argument has been well put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) in a letter which he has sent hon. Members. I


do not blame him for not wanting to waste a stamp on sending one to me but nevertheless, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy. In this letter, my right hon. Friend says that, despite all these spillages,
the proposed single buoy mooring would greatly reduce the risk of pollution to the coastline of North Wales and Liverpool Bay.
The argument is based on the fact that the ships at present taking the oil to Tranmere, being super-tankers, are too large to go up the Mersey, so they have to unload part of the oil on to other tankers in a lightening operation. It is alleged that these lightening operations are a far greater danger than the spillages which might come from a single buoy mooring and that on these grounds alone it is worth having the latter.
But let us consider the evidence on this. The bare fact is that in 296 lightening operations there have been only two spillages In that same period, there were 150 spillages at single buoy moorings and at Durban, in one year to October, 1971, when 91 ships unloaded, there were 22 spillages.
Mr. Thomas, the Anglesey pollution officer, admitted that there was only one spillage during lightening operations off Anglesey and no pollution. So he has admitted that the operations which worry the advocates of the Bill so much have caused hardly any spillages and no pollution.
Mr. Thomas was asked:
So, in the lightening operations which are occurring today off your shores, there has been only one incident of spillage and no incident of pollution?
He replied:
There has been no instance of pollution so far.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my hon. Friend take the point that Shell Oil was sufficiently frank to volunteer information to the Select Committtee in another place which resulted in that Committee being reconvened? Will he also deal with the point that it has never been disputed that there were spillages? What has been stated clearly is that none of the oil from the single busy mooring at Durban reached the beaches there.

Mr. Kaufman: As to the first point, Shell had to spill the beans because it was rumbled. I shall be coming to the

second point later. Although I do not intend to prolong my remarks I will deal with this matter, perhaps not to my right hon. Friend's satisfaction but, I hope, to that of other hon. Gentlemen.
My right hon. Friend talks about pollution at Durban and we also hear about the danger of pollution at Amlwch and the danger not only of spillages but of other things. We shall come to the danger of spillages, because here we should consider what was said on Third Reading in another place on 1st February by Lord Moyne. He said:
no witness was able to satisfy me that at this place, where townsmen come on holiday in search of peace and quiet, there would not be a noise from pumping all night long, which it was admitted would be necessary, or that there would not be some aroma of oil."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st February, 1972; Vol. 327, c. 738.]
So noise and smell are as much pollution as spillage.
Lord Moyne made that statement in February. In all my research on this—I have done a great deal—I have so far found no denial of what he said about noise and smell.
But another was made on Second Reading in this House by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who is now Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I have advised him that I would mention him. He said that the tank farm which will include up to 15 tanks each twice the size of Conway Castle,
will be very carefully landscaped."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 154.]
Let us consider this claim. Our consideration brings us to evidence quoted on day six from the Countryside Commission.
Incidentally, as reported at col. 200 of my speech last week, I attributed something to the Countryside Commission which should have been attributed to the inspector from the Department of the Environment. I apologise for misleading the House, but I would still regard the evidence on that as valid.
Talking about the tank farm which the hon. Member for Cambridge said could be concealed by landscaping, the Countryside Commission said:
The tank farm could be acceptable in the landscape if it were screened at vital points by sufficiently high banks planted with shrubs such as willow.


But one cannot conceal with shrubs and willows tanks twice the size of Conway Castle.
One finds the true situation on page 58, among the evidence on day six, when counsel against the Bill said:
But you know, that was all gone into at the inquiry and the expert opinion of Mr. Graham, the architect, was that you could not deal with installations of this character like that. You would have to screen the view-points … and not the tanks.
So Anglesey's amenities are saved not by screening the enormous tanks but by destroying the view by planting trees, after which it can be said that the tank farm is no longer an eyesore. Therefore, as it was put to the Committee, it is clear that what the Countryside Commission was thinking about in regard to artificial tanks and the planting of willows was completely up the creek.
So much for landscaping and preventing these installations from becoming an eyesore. My right hon. Friend said earlier—I do not quarrel with him because I do not wish to make points which are not absolutely proven—that there was no proof of pollution at Durban from the undoubted spillages which took place. But what will happen at Anglesey? On this I should like to adduce two pieces of evidence.
The first is from day five, when Dr. E. Jones, a lecturer in marine biology at the University College of North Wales and a doctor of philosophy was asked:
Is your concern with large-scale pollution or small spills?
He replied:
We are concerned with all pollution. Naturally, the bigger the spillage the worse it is. There is one thing to be said: a large spillage is something immediately seen and dealt with. Small spillages may possibly escape attention, as has happened before now, and this will have a possibly longer and more serious effect. Certainly a series of small spillages at intervals, and the chemical provision of dispersants will effect a gradual change in the flora and fauna—for instance, the animals and plants you find will not be the ones you found before. There may be tremendous changes.
That is what an expert on marine biology said about the effect of small spillages on the ecology of Amlwch.
However, my right hon. Friend will say, and I do not quarrel with him, that there has been no pollution at Durban

and, therefore, why should there be any pollution at Anglesey? I therefore quote the evidence of Dr. J. H. Simpson, who is a lecturer in physical oceanography at the University College of North Wales. Dr. Simpson, speaking about Amlwch and Anglesey, said:
The hydrographic data available suggests that an oil leakage from Amlwch will spread rapidly along the coast where only a small component of onshore current will be required for it to come ashore on the beaches of Anglesey's north coast. Since such a complicated pattern of water movements is involved, accurate predictions of oil movement will prove difficult. Treatment of the spillage could also be difficult, if not impossible at times, because of its rapid spreading and the hostile wind and wave conditions in the region.
It is perhaps worth noting that conditions at Amlwch are generally less favourable, for both offloading manoeuvres and cleaning up operations, than at the other SBMs which we have. For example, Durban, which I understand has a less than acceptable spillage record, is not exposed to the same extremes of wind, waves and tide which afflict Amlwch.
That was the evidence of Dr. J. H. Simpson, who was saying, in effect, that the danger of spillage is greater at Amlwch than Durban. Of course, we have already had evidence from an expert in marine biology to say what the effect on Anglesey's ecology would be if such spillages occurred.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Dr. Jones was a distinguished witness, but his evidence was controverted by other experts in the course of Select Committee hearings in both Houses. I referred to the Durban SBM because my hon. Friend was making much of it. However, I should prefer him to deal with an SBM much nearer home, the one in the Humber estuary which has been working successfully for 18 months and where no damage to flora or fauna has been discovered.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that entirely about the Humber SBM. I am not attempting to adduce any greater evidence than the facts will bear. On the other hand, when my right hon. Friend says that the evidence of the expert whom I have quoted was controverted, that is putting it a little high. His evidence was contradicted but not controverted. There were two examples of evidence put forward. I put forward the evidence of an acknowledged expert whom my right hon. Friend has said is a distinguished


expert. I ask the House to take that evidence into account in coming to its decision. I do not ask the House to let it bear any greater weight than it will accept.
Why do I oppose the single buoy mooring so greatly? Contrary to what has been bizarrely alleged, it is not because the oil comes from an Arab country, and that because of some personal obsession I do not wish oil from Arab countries to come to this country. It would be a little strange if I took that view because the state of Israel's economy depends a great deal on oil which comes from the Gulf States. That allegation, which has been put about by hon. Members irresponsibly, is beneath contempt. I oppose the Bill because it is part of an intention by Shell for a progressive invasion of Anglesey.
It is my view that if we have this SBM, with whatever pollution it will bring about, when we have the hideous eyesore of the tank farm, which will not be concealed, the day will come when someone will say "Anglesey is such a mess, let us have a refinery there."
Counsel for the Bill on day one rather grandiloquently said:
I should also add that the Council have obtained from Shell an undertaking they will not seek to set up a refinery or petro-chemical complex on the island of Anglesey. Of course, there are other oil companies and Shell cannot speak for them, but it cannot be envisaged for the moment why any other oil company should be interested in it.
I shall refer hon. Members to another exchange, this time involving Mr. G. A. Williams, the Chairman of the Anglesey Parliamentary Committee, the value of whose evidence I will deal with in a little while. Mr. Williams was asked:
It is right, is it not, that the county council will never be able by itself to prevent similar developments on Anglesey?"—
namely a refinery on Anglesey.
Mr. Williams replied:
We cannot guarantee that will not happen, but there will be a very stout campaign mounted if ever that comes about.
I am sure that there would be such a campaign, but let us see what value such a campaign might have. Let us look at what might occur regarding such a refinery.
I now turn to day six and the evidence adduced about a refinery. I turn to the evidence of Professor Odell, an oil consultant, who was in Shell's employment. Professor Odell left Shell and attempts were made by Shell to discredit him. Nevertheless, he is an oil consultant, whose word should be given some weight, if not given over-weight. Professor Odell was asked:
You mentioned that the establishment of industrial complex systems had, what you called, a demonstration effect and attracted other companies and interests. I would like to refer you to a question and answer given by Mr. Williams, the Anglesey County Council's financial adviser, at the Public Inquiry. He was asked by Mr. Mills, 'In your opinion would you think that the financial attractiveness of this scheme could in fact attract other oil companies? You say that it will stimulate competition that you think'—there is something then—'got to do a similar thing, take their oil in a cheaper way—in other words bringing it in larger tankers. In your opinion, do you think that the Shell setting up here, do you think that other companies will be attracted by the financial advantages?'".
Mr. Hill replied:
'I don't know enough really to give an informed opinion on that though I must say that there is an almost inherent magnetism in things if a particular facility does become available under certain conditions in a certain place quite obviously others will also want to look at that possibility. I mean whether they'll ever achieve anything or whether they would come but I am obliged to agree with you that I think it does give a stimulus in that direction'.
Professor Odell was then asked:
Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Hill's suggestion that there is almost an inherent magnetism?
Professor Odell replied:
Certainly, on the basis of European-wide experience this is so. Every such terminal has been accompanied by refinery development or the proposal for a refinery, with the single exception of the one in North Germany.
That question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett), who was a member of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend questioned Professor Odell as follows:
You have heard it stated that there is a question of a refinery on Anglesey, but the County Council itself bitterly opposed any suggestion of it. Do you yourself think in the light of what has been said that it would be bad business not to have a refinery on Anglesey if this SBM project goes through?


Professor Odell replied:
Well, for one of many companies it could be a good location for a refinery if a refinery were possible. As I said in previous evidence, there is no company other than Shell, apart from Burmah with its small refinery, which has refining facilities in that part of the United Kingdom, and at some stage in the future some other company in the United Kingdom will want one.
I conclude my quotations from evidence about the possibility of a refinery by turning to the end of day six where we find counsel against the Bill saying:
My conclusion that approval to the tank farm would not in itself create a serious precedent is however tempered by 2 reservations, the first of which is that it must be recognised that the change of character due to building on nearly 200 acres of agricultural land would inevitably make further development less easy to resist. Secondly, without knowledge of the requirements of other oil companies the likely pressure for development to take advantage of the surplus capacity on the terminals is also unknown. Increased revenue from the terminals would be a factor in favour of such development.
I said that I was quoting counsel against the Bill and so I was, but counsel against the Bill was quoting the inspector of the Department of the Environment who was warning him about the inherent magnetism that might attract a refinery.
Therefore, I say that once we have the ravaging of Anglesey which I greatly fear is taking place, it will be very difficult for a tiny county council to resist. It is very interesting to note that the functions under the Local Government Bill are being transferred to the Anglesey district council to make sure that the same tiny area which has been overshadowed by Shell will still be a tiny area and not a county area, and will have to cope with this matter.
What are the bona fides of Shell? The House of Lords had to issue a further Special Report because of the way in which Shell withheld evidence about spillages in Durban. The Special Report stated:
The Committee feel bound to put on record their surprise that an organisation of the international standing of the Royal Dutch Shell Group should have found such difficulty in supplying statistics of spillage and pollution which had occurred in single buoy Terminals under their control.
Before the Committee Shell had stated that various organisations all over the

world were in a sense autonomous so it could not insist on getting information from them.
But it was not just the House of Lords that reproved Shell for the way in which they withheld evidence or gave false evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), speaking in the Second Reading debate in this Chamber said about Shell:
The Shell representatives were not prepared to tell us the cost of the scheme or how it would work.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend—and I use that phrase in its parliamentary sense—should make it quite clear that that Bill referred to proposals by the Shell Company for a single buoy mooring for Anglesey when we had co-sponsorship in partnership with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board; not this Bill, this scheme, but the scheme that was proposed at the start but never got further than the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board's offices.

Mr. Kaufman: I am well aware of that. My hon. Friend, and I do not use that expression only in the parliamentary sense—I shall not allow a little difference to prevent my seeking to pour oil on troubled waters—knows that I am perfectly well aware that he was then referring to the project when it was to be under the control of Merseyside, but he also knows perfectly well that it was the identical project that is now being proposed but which was simply going to be run by the Mersey Port rather than by the Anglesey County Council. That is literally the only change that has been made. In any case, whatever the project was, and it was a project for a single buoy mooring for Anglesey, and my hon. Friend cannot deny that—

Mr. Ogden: Three years ago.

Mr. Kaufman: Certainly, but he is on record as reproving Shell by saying:
The Shell representatives were not prepared to tell us the cost of the scheme or how it would work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 142.]
But my hon. Friend need not take only his own word. Another supporter of the Bill is the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) whom I have also advised


I would mention in this debate. He, on Second Reading said:
I have not always found it easy to extract from Shell what exactly it is trying to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 152.]
If my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby will not believe himself, I refer him to what was said by the hon. Member for Flint, West.
So it is established by the way in which the House of Lords was misled, by what my hon. Friend said and by what the hon. Member for Flint, West said that Shell are not exactly witnesses of probity when this single buoy mooring is involved.
Nevertheless, we come to the astonishing fact that Anglesey County Council in deciding to go ahead with this scheme accepted the word of Shell and of Shell only.
Let us turn to an exchange of questions and answers with Councillor Williams, chairman of the Anglesey Parliamentary Committee:
Q. Well let us just deal with one or two questions. For example, there is the question of the demand at Stanlow for oil. Who gave you that information?
A. Certain information was given to a meeting which was held in January, 1971, by Shell representatives.
Another question:
You did not make any inquiries from an independent expert, for example an economist, as to whether or not what you were told was true?
A. No, but we have not found anyone to tell us that it is not true.
Another question:
It really comes to this, that apart from Mr. Hill and such planning advice as you had, you relied on Shell and such other odd sources of information that you could find or were available to you?
A. I cannot accept that because my view is that the County Council deliberated collectively and individually about the matter and gave its opinion. It did so after much thought by lay people who are the elected representatives of the County of Anglesey. We did that in March of 1971, and I do not think that we have been proved to be very wrong since then.
A further question:
Just coming to the whole question of pollution, would I be right in saying that your conclusions in relation to the SBMs and the risk of spillage there are based largely on what you have been told by Shell?

A. They were based to a substantial extent, yes, but if I can say there are seafaring men in the County Council. They know people who are closely connected with the sea and they know, this part of their daily allocation, what it is all about, and that is how one came to this conclusion.
Another question:
When you were told by Shell about single buoy moorings, you did not, for example, ask them about the figures at single buoy mooring in other parts of the world?
A. Not to the extent of the table that has been put in.
Q. Did you ask them at all?
A. We were told there were no instances of sea pollution at that time.
That was all the care he took, an elected representative, to check on what Shell had said.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Both last week and today my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has attacked the members and officials of the Anglesey County Council. I must deplore this. It is grossly unfair under the cloak of privilege of the House to say what my hon. Friend has said about these distinguished people who have served Anglesey well over a long period of time, and about men who are reckoned to be among the most prudent local government officers in Wales. This is a point that should be made. The officials, of course, are non-political, but the members of the county council represent all political parties. I therefore hope that what my hon. Friend says will not be considered an adequate reason for opposing the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the Measure on its merits.
Last week he said that the Anglesey County Council had been taken for a ride and would have the burden of meeting any servicing of the loan of £1·5 million in respect of capital works. He quoted the Commons Select Committee evidence in support of what he said, but he did not quote the evidence in full and it is important that he should be corrected in this respect. In page 36 of day one, 6th June, we read that Councillor Alan Williams, whom my hon. Friend has sought most unfairly to denigrate, said that the service estimated cost of the works was £¾ million and the company had agreed with the county council to meet the interest and loan charges. In other words, the county council was not so gullible as my hon. Friend thinks, and


he should really take pains to check before making statements of that kind, which mislead the House.

Mr. Kaufman: I have been to enormous pains on this matter. I can understand my right hon. Friend wishing to defend the Anglesey County Council, and I admire him for it. If I were in his position I would do the same. When he says that I have attacked the county councillors under the cloak of privilege, I reply that I have used parliamentary privilege for what it is required for and what it is available for—saying things which require to be said without fear or favour. I do not know Councillor Williams or which party he belongs to or whether he is a nice man or a nasty man. All I know is that what he said before the Committee was disgraceful and in my view a betrayal of the people he is alleged to represent. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is offended.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the £750,000. I mentioned it. I dealt with it at some length last week. I deliberately mentioned it and compared it with the £1·5 million. If my right hon. Friend is saying that I did not give every piece of evidence available, maybe that was so, but he moved the Closure on me because I was speaking too long.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to be unfair. The point he was making last week was that the service charges on this sum of money, whether £1·5 million or £750,000, would have to be met by revenue which Anglesey would receive from the project. If he had read a sentence or two further on, he would have found that agreement had been reached between Shell and the county council to meet these charges.

Mr. Kaufman: If my right hon. Friend says that I have been misrepresenting in any way, then I am happy that he has intervened and put right what he believes I put wrong. In no way do I seek to misrepresent. I have exceedingly strong opinions on this matter, which are totally disinterested, as my right hon. Friend will accept, but I do not seek to misrepresent and I am putting all the evidence I can before the House.
The lack of frankness by Shell was acknowledged even by Captain Overschie. On the question of Shell honouring its

undertaking to provide information, he was asked:
I can take it now, can I, that they still do not propose to give us the records?
He, representing Shell, said:
I do not think they will.
He did not think that Shell would provide the Committee with the information and in fact Shell did not provide it—and that was the information required in order to get an accurate impression of exactly what the pollution dangers were.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I should like to use not my own words but the words of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place on 9th June last year. I think that he stated the position as well as it can possibly be stated. He pointed out that this was a case of an enormous multi-million pound company with immense power persuading a tiny county council to do what it wanted done, and commented:
… when a small local authority is teamed with a large public company, no matter how high the reputation of that company may stand, we should look closely at what is proposed in order to check that, as time goes by, the public authority will remain the master in its own house and will not become the weaker partner. In such cases our local authorities are notoriously bad judges in their own cause, and they are often at a disadvantage. Councillors become excited at the idea of developments on a large scale. They think in terms of greatly increased rateable value and feel that something is at last going to happen in their distant neighbourhood; while their officials tend to become even more excited. But most of them have had little experience of industrial development. It can well be that they have in the short term the prospect of some advantages which, as the years go by, will be outweighed by the far larger advantages accruing to their partner from the industrial venture. I am not accusing anybody of doing anything underhand or dishonourable: this is just part of the facts of life. Hence, I think we should look most carefully at these proposals, because in the end a public company of the size, nature and scope of that which we are considering here has resources which are far greater, and an influence which is far stronger and wider, than that of the council of any small county."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th June, 1972; Vol. 320, c. 269.]
That was a warning on behalf of the little man against a vast capitalist company by a Conservative ex-Member of this House. If a Conservative can see the dangers to this tiny council from this leviathan which has come along and


bamboozled it into believing that this project will be helpful, I cannot see that my Socialist friends on this side of the House will be bamboozled in that way. I have very deep respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, and I know that many hon. Members vote with him, as I would in any other circumstances, because of personal regard for him. But despite the fact that he is the sponsor of the Bill, something which in any other circumstances would lead me to support it, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends as Socialists to vote against a Measure which is profoundly antisocial.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in his opposition to the Bill. I do not do so as a Socialist but as a Conservative and perhaps for very different reasons from those he has advanced. This is a very important Bill and if it were to be decided on the evidence which has been put before us I believe that the House would vote it out. If Shell has got a good case, I regret to say that in my opinion it has failed to present it to the House and I congratulate most sincerely the hon. Gentleman on the very excellent case he has put to the House.
For many years business and profits have taken precedence over social and environmental matters. Technological progress and blind determination to achieve a higher standard of living in money terms have ridden roughshod over many other considerations. As a result, large areas of our country have been laid waste and despoiled without thought to the loss of amenity, without thought for the social consequences and without adequate thought of the risks involved.
Areas of great beauty in our country-side and on our coasts have been desecrated by monstrous monuments to modern living. We are not so well blessed in the United Kingdom that we can allow the demands of so-called progress to invade our remaining areas of outstanding beauty. Anglesey is a place where I have spent many wonderful holidays. It is a magnificent island. The whole coast of North Wales is magnificent. Both Anglesey and North Wales

are great holiday and tourist attractions. One could describe them as national assets.
The proposal to construct an off-shore oil terminal for giant tankers could put the future of the whole area in jeopardy. Oil pollution if it occurs would destroy to a large degree the holiday and tourist trade, to the economic disadvantage of many thousands of people who are employed in the hotel, catering and entertainment industries in North Wales and Anglesey.
In considering the Bill, what would be the advantages of the new Shell terminal? Would they outweigh the disadvantages of pollution which I believe would result if the terminal were established on the coast of Anglesey? I believe that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. There would no doubt be substantial rateable value due to the county council. However, we are informed—and it has not been contradicted—that the number of jobs resulting from the terminal would be a maximum of 35 to 40. That is the information which has come to be available to us.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the doubling of the capacity of Stanlow must have considerably important industrial repercussions in that area and throughout the whole of Lancashire industry?

Mr. Winterton: I intend to come to that briefly, but I will say now that the establishment of a terminal there could well result in a reduction of the work force in the Mersey docks. We know the situation of the British docks today—it is very serious. Offset against the 35 to 40 jobs which would result from the terminal would be the loss to the island in the tourist trade. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see the serious nature of this proposal if it were successful and oil spillage occurred.
In examining this Bill to establish a single buoy mooring type terminal on the coast of Anglesey, any interested person immediately looks to the experience gained elsewhere in the world as to the reliability of this kind of installation. As we have heard, Shell has such a terminal at Durban, in South Africa. As we have been advised, certain spillages have taken place there. Here I want to quote from


a report in the Observer of 25th June last in which a Durban Member of Parliament was quoted as saying:
There is continual spillage taking place. Provision is made there for a surplus boat with certain detergents which are used to spray the surplus slicks when they occur, but … there is still oil coming ashore.
The report went on to say that the MP had added
… that the effect of the detergents was that the oil came ashore 'not as a liquid but in great semi-liquid, semi-solid blobs that disperse through the sand and can go down as far as 18 in. to 2 ft.
'Therefore, to talk about sweeping it up … is a lot of nonsense. You cannot sweep it up because it goes down so deep. This is spreading further and further down the coast.'
That is ample evidence that there is pollution from this type of installation and I hope that the House will bear it in mind.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I obviously do not wish to intervene in this debate because my function is to remain neutral on a private Bill, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read the report of the inspector who heard evidence at an inquiry a year ago? The findings of the inspector were that the risk of pollution from the development proposed in Anglesey would be likely to be less than the risk of pollution from the present arrangement.

Mr. Winterton: I cannot comment on that. I would perhaps expect the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick, if he can intervene again, to comment on it. There is a mass of evidence in this debate and I regret that perhaps I have not read every word on the subject. But it is worth repeating that the information on the reliability of the Durban installation directly contradicts Shell's case that no single buoy mooring terminal has been the continuing agent of beach pollution.
The Anglesey County Council's position on the Bill has been based on a total acceptance of the assertion by Shell of no beach pollution.
My purpose is to highlight the environmental aspects of the matter. Furthermore, it is now clear from Shell's own figures that the risks of oil spillage from the present lightening operations in Liverpool Bay are very much smaller than those from discharging at single buoy mooring terminals.
Two other matters are worthy of mention. We are all very much aware of the position of our docks—and this is a reply to some extent to the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). It is estimated that if a single buoy mooring terminal is established off Anglesey, the Mersey will suffer financial losses of about £1·3 million per annum, leading, no doubt, to further redundancies in the docks in the area and also to redundancies in the dock installations. Surely we must look at this proposal from an overall national standpoint. We must not look at it in isolation, ignoring future developments in oil supply and availability. These points have been touched upon at length by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick.
In putting forward a proposal such as this, to establish an oil terminal off a coastline of outstanding natural beauty, off a shore line internationally famous for its wild life, with part of the installation a 200-acre tank farm in deep countryside with cross-country pipelines and all the destruction which goes with the construction of such pipelines, I believe that Shell should have been prepared to make out a case that the terminal was in the national interest. In my opinion, and it may be an opinion shared by others, Shell has utterly failed to do so.
A marginal increase in Mersey tanker traffic could cope with the crude oil needs of Stanlow, and there is no doubt that if a terminal were established, it would be difficult—and my experience of local government supports this view—to refuse future allied developments in Anglesey, an area which I regard as being of outstanding beauty.
For those and other reasons, I hope that the House will refuse to sanction the Bill.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have followed the progress of the Bill with great attention, because in some way it forms a precedent as to how we are to deal with oil developments. I represent two sets of islands on which the impact of oil will be greater than that upon Anglesey.
This very day in Orkney the local planning committee is considering an application which, if accepted, might involve


the damming up of a whole bay of Orkney and the flattening of a whole hill, with dramatic effect on the landscape, and the construction of a concrete oil rig of which the base will be measured in acres of concrete. It will have a dramatic effect not only on the landscape but on the social life of Orkney.
During the debate there has been some criticism of the handling of the Bill by the Anglesey County Council. I know nothing about that and I do not want in any way to be associated with attacks on Anglesey County Council. But it makes me wonder whether the small county councils, such as that which I represent and such as that represented by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), are being supplied with the means to get the level of advice that they now require. These matters are far beyond the normal scope of a county council. The whole scale of planning has been altered. I do not know whether the Government are prepared either to provide the councils with advice, or to give them the means of getting it.
There has been criticism of the lack of information from the Shell oil company. I have had several conversations with Shell and I must confess that I consider that I have been well treated by the company. It has given me a good deal of information as far as it can go, but this is a difficult subject with unknown possibilities and, as has been stressed, we are still only exploring the dangers of pollution.
It is not only oil technology; it is the whole of big business and how to handle companies that are associated with oil companies. I wonder whether the Government have faced that problem and whether they should provide county councils and other authorities with the means to deal with this new situation.
Under the Bill, the oil company has agreed to make considerable contributions and other payments to Anglesey County Council. I attach great importance to that. I understand that those contributions are over and above what the company will pay in rates, and I believe that to be right. I hope that this will set a precedent for other companies, as well as oil companies, which may be making great demands on the landscape, often very beautiful landscapes, and landscapes

on a scale which simply cannot be flattened out in any sort of nineteenth-century way as though we were back in the worst days of the Industrial Revolution.
I understand that under the Bill the county council is to become a harbour authority, and this, too, is welcome. It is vital for the Government to encourage public authorities to take control of those parts of the coast likely to be affected by the development of oil companies or by the development of companies associated with oil. I understand that the Bill will allow the county council to accumulate any profits accruing from the harbour venture and to put them to the general good of the county, and I attach great importance to that. Local authorities should be empowered to offer a package deal to developing companies so as to maintain control over the land in question while keeping a finger on such things as education and housing and the impact of any commercial venture on the community.
Pollution is a profoundly disturbing problem, not only in Durban but, for instance, off the coast of America where it has been vast. We know very little about its dangers. That being so, would it not make sense for the Government to set up some fund which might at least compensate, so far as that is possible, some of the areas that might be affected by pollution? It is no good telling Anglesey or Shetland or Orkney County Council, "You just have to meet the cost". The national interest is involved and pollution does not come ashore exactly on county boundaries. It is a national matter, and a national fund is greatly needed.
When the oil age is over, and that may not be so very long—it is said that the North Sea fields may last for 25 years and I do not know how long Shell will take oil even to this mooring off Anglesey—we are promised that everything will be put back, that restitution will be made, that willows will be planted around the oil installations, that a forest will be planted on Orkney—and that will be an uphill job, for no one has succeeded in doing that since about 3000 BC.
What stands behind the promise? How does a local authority ensure that such a promise is made good? This, too, is a matter for the Government. We know


how quarry companies form subsidiaries so that when they have finished exploiting a quarry they may go out of business. I am not suggesting that reputable companies would do that, but I am suggesting that we must not repeat the mistakes of the nineteenth century. Generations to come will not forgive us if we leave places like Anglesey in ruin for the sake of 25 years of prosperity.
I believe that the two can be reconciled, but that is something that needs the support of the Government. It is their responsibility to see that development is carried out in such a way that the local community gains now, but that when the oil boom is over, the local community is not left to clear up the mess.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I support the Bill and I do so because I have satisfied myself, having attended all the debates on the Bill in this place as well as having studied evidence elsewhere, that there is a genuine likelihood of distinctly less pollution if the Bill is carried through.
We have heard that super-tankers coming into Liverpool Bay have to go through the process known as lightening, whereby the bulk of the oil is siphoned off into smaller tankers which then discharge either at Tranmere oil terminal or into the Queen Elizabeth II Dock at Eastham. Each time one of the smaller tankers is connected to the super-tanker and the oil commences to be pumped, there is a risk of leakage. Similarly, each time pumping ceases and the disconnection process occurs, there is a similar chance of leakage. When the small tankers come up the Mersey to Tranmere or Eastham, likewise they have to go to the oil terminal and commence pumping, with similar risks and equally, on disconnection, when they have emptied their tanks.

Mr. Kaufman: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cockeram: The hon. Gentleman has occupied more than two hours of the debate. Time is limited, as he knows, and he must now allow the other side of the case to be put.
Each time the process occurs, there is a risk of spillage. It has been known to happen, and let us make no bones

about it. But if a super-tanker is connected to a single buoy mooring, there is only one connection at the commencement of the process and only one disconnection at the end. I am satisfied that that process is distinctly less likely to result in spillage than is the present system.
Do not let us pretend that Liverpool Bay is a vast Mediterranean seaside resort. There is already ample oil on the shores of Liverpool Bay, stretching out into North Wales. I do not blame Shell or any one company for it, but there is plenty of oil on the beaches now and plenty of oil is being spilled in Liverpool Bay under the present system. Because I believe that this project will decrease spillage, I support the Bill.
That is not the only reason. Oil comes into Tranmere oil terminal in my constituency, the jetty sticking out into the Mersey. The tankers are getting larger and in consequence finding it more difficult to manoeuvre in confined waters. There have already been a number of accidents, one in particular when one of the tankers smashed a large part of the jetty which cost more than £250,000 to repair, and the crash put that portion of the jetty out of action for about 12 months. Constituents of mine sleep in their beds at night within 100 yards of where those tankers are discharging oil. This risk of fire and explosion virtually in the heart of an area where people are living is a risk the continuation of which I am not prepared to countenance. Fortunately we have not had a fire or explosion on a tanker so far, but no one can say that it cannot happen.
There is another form of pollution. The smaller tankers that come into Queen Elizabeth II dock at Eastham discharge some of their oil into storage tanks on the quayside and much of that oil is carried by road through the small village of Eastham. I do not suppose that many hon. Members know that village, but it is very attractive and many hundreds of years old, and it has narrow winding streets.
About 350 road tankers per day pound through the village streets of Eastham. They have knocked down the garden walls of my constituents and have even bumped into the walls of houses, not only garden walls. There are people in


Eastham who have had to board up their front doors because they dare not go out of their front doors on to the pavement because of the wide tankers passing by and so they use their back doors. That is a form of pollution that would be much better ended.
If instead of that we had a single buoy mooring in Liverpool Bay to which there was one connection only at the commencement of the pumping process and one disconnection at the end, and if all that oil could be carried by pipeline to Stanlow, the environment of that part of the North-West would be much improved.
Another aspect of the matter is the provision of jobs. It has been said that this project will cost approximately £55 million. Here is a company prepared to invest that sum in the North-West, and it is not investing taxpayers' money. It is not getting any assistance from the Government's recent Industry Act, which has assisted many companies and which has been of great help to us in the North-West but which is not applicable in this instance.
The construction of this single-buoy mooring and the attendant pipelines running right through North Wales and buried and the land then landscaped on completion will be a job taking two to three years and employing many people. Much of the work of burying pipelines will mean the employment of unskilled labour, and that will be useful with the present state of unemployment in the North-West. That is a further reason why I support the Bill.

Mr. John Farr: While my hon. Friend is talking about jobs, no doubt having checked he is able to tell the House how many people will be without jobs because they will no longer be driving 350 lorries a day carrying oil through his village.

Mr. Cockeram: I cannot quote the exact figure, but my constituents in Eastham will be greatly relieved if even 25 per cent. of the lorries can be taken off the streets of Eastham. I certainly speak for my constituents in that respect.
In addition to the extra work coming to the North-West from the construction process, on completion we will also bene-

fit from having an efficient oil undertaking in our area with a consequential benefit of lower fuel costs in the North-West. That will bring further benefit in that the oil companies, including Shell, will continue to use Stanlow and other installations in Ellesmere Port.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has made an interesting argument about lower fuel costs. Has he any information that the House does not have from Shell about this operation producing lower fuel costs for people in the North-West?

Mr. Cockeram: I do not have any information that is not available to the rest of the House, and as the House will know there has been a trend over the last few years to use ever larger tankers with consequent economies of scale. It stands to reason that to pump the oil by pipeline is much more economical than using fleets of lorries. I must admit that I cannot support that by statistics.
It seems common sense and for that reason I support this proposal, because I believe that the North-West will benefit, not only in the construction stage but because it will ensure that Shell and other oil companies continue to invest heavily in the North-West. Their doing so will be to our benefit.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The debate on Third Reading has shown again that whilst the Bill is of primary importance and concern to the people of Anglesey and the North-West, it is also of major importance and concern to people much further afield, to the people of Merseyside and the North-West, the Midlands and Orkney and Shetland.
I put on record my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and his Welsh colleagues who have always recognised this wider interest. This is no mere constituency matter and perhaps it was in recognition of this that last week my right hon. Friend, in suggesting possible ways that this debate might have gone—I emphasise the "might"—said that I might usefully take part in it.
There is a certain piquancy in that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)


knows and as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) certainly knows, this might have been a Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill because the first proposal for the establishment of a single buoy mooring for Anglesey was made by the Shell Company to and through the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
That proposal did not last very long. Quickly and rightly in my view, it became an Anglesey County Council and Shell Oil Company partnership. The people of Anglesey immediately took a keen, critical and constructive interest in this proposal. Whether they gave full support or qualified support or qualified opposition or wholehearted opposition, they have a common interest and concern for the welfare and well-being of Anglesey second to none in any part of the United Kingdom.
I have met many who support the Bill and many who oppose it. Before Third Reading I met no one who doubted the ability, courage or honesty of those with whom they might disagree. Their concern was the same. Their views, evidence and information might be different, but the recognition of that integrity was admirable.
In opening the debate last week my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said that the Bill had been discussed and debated in detail inside and outside the House over the past two years—in Anglesey, throughout Wales in the North-West and in Parliament. Among the mass of evidence and opinions put forward, either in support of the Bill or in opposition to the Bill, the experience of the operation of the single buoy mooring system off the port of Durban in South Africa has been cited.
I was able to see that SBM system during the last Summer Recess. I was able to visit the refinery which it served. I should explain that the visit was a late inclusion in a three-week visit to South Africa which had been prepared for myself and two Labour colleagues over a period of many months. The itinerary that had been carefully arranged allowed for five days based in Durban.
In July, I asked the Shell Company whether it could make arrangements for my hon. Friends and me to visit the refinery and the SBM. It immediately

agreed to do so and I want to put on record my appreciation of the help that I have had as a Member from Merseyside from the Shell Oil Company with information and statistics. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or to anyone else that I speak as a Member from Merseyside but everyone knows that I am a sponsored Member of the National Union of Mineworkers. I am not ashamed of my union knowing this, knowing that I talked to the Shell Oil Company. If the coal miners of this country are to learn more about fuel policy, we have to know what our competitors are doing.

Mr. Robert Hughes: To make certain that there is no misunderstanding about this business can my hon. Friend say who sponsored his three-week visit to South Africa?

Mr. Ogden: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make my own speech in my own way, I will come to that.
I was putting on record my appreciation of the information I had had from the Shell Oil Company. It might be sufficient in this debate simply to say that my three-week visit was made separately and independently of the Shell Oil Company, separately and independently of the Anglesey County Council and separately and independently of the Government of South Africa. I have no financial interest in this Bill and I have no financial interest in any person or organisation whom I know to be interested in the Bill. That, at this stage, will have to be enough.
On 25th August I was able to visit the Sapref refinery and its operations, and from the seashore to see the SBM. We discussed the SBM and its operation in detail with the general manager of the refinery, Mr. Wilson—[Interruption.]— Mr. J. R. Wilson, no relation to my right hon. Friend. We discussed the SBM and its operation and we asked for and he later gave a detailed written report of the experience and operation of the SBM.
It is relevant to this debate, because it has been raised by many people, that I put on record the report that was given to us. This is the report of Mr. J. R. Wilson, the general manager of the Shell and B.P. South African Petroleum


Refineries, dated 29th August, 1972, four days after we had visited him. It says:
When you visited Sapref last Friday for an on-the-spot discussion on the single buoy mooring system I undertook to put down a few facts and figures on paper for you. I have summarised the operational incidents at our SBM in Table I and the results of our aerial patrol for oil slick spotting off the Natal Coast are reviewed in Table II.
It is a pity that we cannot put these tables on the record.
The Durban single buoy mooring operated by Sapref on behalf of the owners, Shell, BP, Mobil and Sasol, was commissioned on the 19th September 1970 and since then we have had 141 tankers on the buoy. The quantity of crude oil discharged in this period (September 1970 to August 1972) is 12,182,000 metric tons. Although there are 33 spillages recorded as having taken place at the S.B.M., I would emphasise that many of these are extremely small ones but they have been noted for the record because, as responsible citizens, we are concerned about the conservation of our environment. In fact, 23 of the 33 spillages have been anything from a few pints of crude up to 1 ton and we have not had a single spillage which exceeds 20 tons of oil. We estimate the total quantity of oil spilt at the S.B.M. in all incidents to be no more than 80 tons which is a fraction of a percent of the total oil discharged at the S.B.M.
The design, construction and operation of the S.B.M. embodied every possible precaution to prevent pollution. A suitably equipped launch is on stand-by throughout the discharge of tankers and all spillages that have occurred were quickly and effectively dispersed with a low toxicity dispersant approved by the Department of Sea Fisheries and supplied by BP. The success of the measures adopted to avoid the consequences of oil spillage at the S.B.M. can be judged from the fact that only on one occasion has a small quantity of oil scum/dispersant reached the nearby beaches of Amanzimtoti and this had disappeared completely within 12 hours.
Needless to say, the little round black balls of weathered crude oil which are common on many European bathing beaches are now also present on those of the Natal coastline due to the vastly increased shipping activity around South Africa's shores since the closure of the Suez Canal in 1967. The S.B.M. has frequently been accused of having been responsible for the black oil blobs on Durban's beaches and in an attempt to ascertain the true facts of oil slicks off the Natal coastline in close proximity to Durban, the Company arranged for a daily aerial patrol for oil slick spotting. This survey pays particular attention to an area of 25 miles radius around Durban but also records oil slicks beyond this area. In the period March 1971 to August 1972 there have been 306 daily observations and only on 115 occasions was no oil recorded at all. Some of the facts and figures derived from this survey are summarised in Table II.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sure that the House is interested in this question of the oil slicks. Has my hon. Friend looked into the question of whether the figure of £1,300,000 is the loss that Liverpool will suffer? Secondly, how many jobs will we lose on Merseyside and how many will be gained in Anglesey? Will my hon. Friend tell us that, because that will determine very much how I vote?

Mr. Ogden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be patient. I am trying, within a very short space of time, much less than that taken by my hon. Friend the Memfor Ardwick, to cover the major matters. There has been a great deal of criticism levelled at these proposals and I would like to answer some of the arguments not for my sake but to get the facts on the record. If I can do this in a consecutive order it might save time.
The report from the general manager goes on to say:
The flourishing marine growth on the SBM itself and its anchor chains and hoses, and the abundance of fish-life in the vicinity of the buoy is a living testimony of the effectiveness of any clean-up operations that we have conducted in the area. The independent diving company that undertakes all maintenance work for us at the buoy has in fact made a video tape of the marine life at the SBM which is available to you if you wish a copy, and which confirms this aspect of our operation. And finally, we have had an independent survey carried out by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of the marine flora and fauna around the Reunion Rocks Canal by them before and after the commissioning of the SBM. This also confirms that our operations had no adverse effect on marine life in the area.
Mr. Wilson gives the facts and figures which show that there have been very few spillages at the SBM—a total of six between September-December, 1970, and January-August, 1972, whereas in outside areas, up to 25 or 40 miles away, a total of more than 220 oil spillages has been observed. That is an honest, convincing report. Great care is taken. From what I saw and after talking to the manager I was convinced of the validity of the information he gave me. There might be doubting Thomases who would say that he was an interested person and was trying to give a favourable report. Equally it might be assumed that my hon. Friends and I were, before we became Members of Parliament, as green


as grass and starry-eyed. If we were—and that is a big assumption—Parliament soon changed that. Anyone who goes to South Africa and gets information from any company, person or organisation ought to take care to check and double-check. We did that in this case but not out of disrespect to anyone with the company, to the manager or anybody else. We checked and double checked.
I talked to Indian South African fishermen fishing from the SBM beach. They said that their catches of fish were good. I talked about the SBM with the Mayor of Durban, Durban city councillors, Durban provincial Members of Parliament, and Durban Members of the national Parliament. They had no complaints to make about the SBM. I walked on the Durban beaches—the white, brown, black beaches and I even found multi-racial beaches—and none of the bathers complained about oil from the SBM. My hon. Friends and I were flown to the Transkei by the same company which operates the oil search and the pilot confirmed my information. We toured Durban harbour and the harbour engineer of the South African Railways Board, Mr. A. Edwards, told us that the "operation of the SBM had caused no embarrassment to the port of Durban". We asked whether we could quote him and we were told, "Certainly". Anyone can telephone him for the information.
The traffic off the coast of Durban is much greater than the traffic off the coast of Anglesey. The ocean conditions off Durban, with a 30 ft. rise and fall, are much worse than they are off the coast of Anglesey. The dangers and hazards off Durban are much greater than they are off Anglesey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton said that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will lose £1,300,000 if the scheme goes through. It is spending £1 million on dredging. The £1,300,000 is a balance. The figures are false. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board does not object to the Bill and I doubt whether it accepts those figures.
Much has been made of the difference in traffic through Merseyside which will result if this proposal is accepted. If the refinery at Stanlow is to expand, as it must if we want expanding employment

in the North-West in the 1980s, the total flow of traffic through Merseyside must be greater, because Stanlow will be an oil exporting as well as an oil importing port. If we want to get super-tankers up the Mersey, we shall have to dredge deeper and longer than we do. Tankers and container ships are often thought to be identical. The container ships ride high; there must be deep dredging for tankers. At the moment one super-tanker a week goes up the Mersey. The traffic in the Mersey has to be stopped to enable it to pass. With five a week the ports of Merseyside will almost be closed.
What will happen if this proposal for an SBM, instead of bringing tankers together, with the ever-present and growing risk of contamination, goes through? I was in South Africa when the "Texanita" and the "Oswego Guardian" collided off Cape Province. The "Texanita" sank with terrible loss of life. The hole in the "Oswego Guardian" created an oil slick 40 miles long and 10 miles wide. Think what a similar occurrence would do to Anglesey. Tankers should be kept apart if possible. Assume that in 10 year's time we are, like it or lump it, part of the European Economic Community. Let us hope that we have a Labour Government in power here and there is a socialist majority in the European Parliament. Let us hope that trade is booming. The north-west ports of the Continent will be built up. Liverpool and Birkenhead could be the greatest and most prosperous ports in Western Europe, linked by the Channel Tunnel for goods and passengers by super-trains. Then we would see the progress and prosperity which we all want.
If we want prosperity in the North-West it must be based on fuel and energy. I agree that we need to make much better use of our coal resources and that we should be conserving and not exploiting the resources of the North Sea because world resources will at sometime run out. Until we get nuclear power and antimatter, we should be conserving our resources. This Bill is a matter not only of safety but of employment and investment for Wales, Merseyside and the North-West, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Mr. GORDON OAKES and Mr. GWYNORO JONES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as a Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Main Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Lords Amendments again considered.

Clause 100

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 158, in page 73, line 6, at end insert:
(10A) It is hereby declared that this section authorises the Greater London Council to arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by the Inner London Education Authority or any education committee established by that Authority under Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act, 1944.

8.30 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment re-enacts a power conferred on the Greater London Council by paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act, 1963. It enables the GLC to arrange for the discharge of its functions by the Inner London Education Authority or any education committee established by that authority. Paragraph 11(3) is in general terms. It empowers the GLC to delegate any of its functions, other than the levying of a rate or borrowing of money, to the Inner London Education Authority or to any education committee set up by that authority.
The effect of the Amendment is to confirm the validity of the Greater London Council's present activity in this respect and it is drafted in declaratory form so that it should not throw into doubt any previous activity of the GLC.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 107

POWER TO CONFER FUNCTIONS OF PARISH OR COMMUNITY COUNCILS ON DISTRICT COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 160, In page 76, line 8, leave out Clause 107.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 374. Amendment No. 160 proposes to delete the Clause and thereby drops as unnecessary a proposed power based on the existing law for the Secretary of State to confer on a district council any functions of a parish or community council. In its place, having dropped that Clause, all that is required is done by Lords Amedment No. 374 by empowering burial authorities, which include district councils, to contribute towards the expenses incurred by any other person in providing or maintaining a cemetery in which the authorities' inhabitants may be buried.
It is a quite extraordinary position that the existing law is only used for burial purposes. It has been found that for the last 15 years the 1933 Act power has only been used to confer on borough and urban district councils the power of a parish council under Section 10 of the Parish Councils Act, 1957, to contribute to the expenses of maintaining a burial place not owned by them. Now what we are doing is to give a direct power, not dependent upon any permission of the Secretary of State, to make a contribution.
We are improving that power to some extent. At present it is a power only to maintain or to contribute to the maintenance of burial places by other people. We have added to that the power to contribute to the expenses of providing a burial place as well as just maintaining it.
I think that this Lords Amendment will remove a number of doubts in the existing law, and it assists those authorities which want to exercise this kind of power.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 161, after Clause 108, in page 76, line 24, insert new Clause C:

"C.—(1) Where it appears to a district council that the county council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions as respects a period beginning with 1st April 1974, but the latter are unwilling to enter into the arrangements or the two councils are unable to agree on the terms of the arrangements, the district council may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction under subsection (3) below.
(2) Where it appears to a county council that a district council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions as respects a period beginning with 1st April 1974, but the latter are unwilling to enter into the arrangements or the two councils are unable to agree on the terms of the arrangements, the county council may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction under subsection (3) below.
(3) On an application under subsection (1) or (2) above the appropriate Minister—

(a) may, if he considers it desirable for the efficient discharge of the relevant functions, or of other functions of either or both of the councils concerned, direct the county council and the district council concerned to enter into any arrangements for the discharge by one of them of specified functions of the other; and
(b) whether or not he gives a direction under paragraph (a) above, may direct that any such arrangements shall contain terms on lines laid down by him.

(4) A direction under subsection (3) above shall not be given after 31st March 1974 and shall, subject to subsection (5) below, remain in force for a period specified in the direction ending before 1st April 1979, but the expiry of any such direction shall not of itself end the arrangements to which it relates.
(5) While a direction under subsection (3) above is in force, the parties to the arrangements to which it relates may by agreement vary or end the arrangements or in default of agreement either of them may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction to vary or end the arrangements, and the appropriate Minister may, if he considers it desirable for the efficient, discharge of the relevant functions, or of other functions of either or both of the councils concerned, direct the parties to vary the arrangements on lines laid down by him or to end the arrangements."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out subsection (4).
That subsection in effect limits the time when agency agreements may be submitted to the Secretary of State, where there is agreement between a county council and a district council, and it appears that direction shall not be given after 31st March, 1974. All the local authority associations are most concerned about this provision—the AMC, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association—and for a number of reasons.
First of all, many of these agency agreements are being entered into or being discussed at the moment, but we have only a matter of months, till 1st April, 1974, for the actual agreements, to be entered into. Far more important is this fact, that after 1st April, 1974, the Boundary Commission will effectively alter many of the areas involved in the present agency agreements. It seems quite wrong that this curtailment and this limitation to 31st March, 1974, should exist in the Bill.
So there are two reasons for opposition to subsection (4). One is that it is unduly rushing things at this time, and the second is that even after 1st April, 1974, and changes proposed by the Boundary Commission, it may be necessary for agency agreements to be entered into between district and county councils, either one way or the other. The Secretary of State himself made it very clear to the House that agency agreements should work two ways. It is assumed—and very often it will be the case—that if any application is made to the Secretary of State it will be a district council applying to the Secretary of State for a direction because of a greedy county council which is taking all the work unto itself and neglecting agency with a district council.
In many instances the situation could be the other way round. Where a county council considers that it can do the job better than a district council, it could apply to the Secretary of State for a direction. After 1st April, 1974, there will be many boundary changes and it will be valuable for agency agreements still to exist or to be arranged. Where there are difficulties between district and county councils the Secretary of State should be empowered to intervene to deal with difficulties between the two parties and to issue a direction.
Hon. Members on this side of the House, and also, I understand, the local authority associations, welcome the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce the concept which lies behind the new Clause, namely that he should intervene between district and county council where there is an impasse so that there is some form of appeal in the case of complete disagreement. However, subsection (4) of the Clause unduly limits the situation to a date, 1st April, 1974—a date that is so near at hand that many authorities, even in the period from today until that date, will still not have resolved the position whether they wish to put an agency agreement to the Minister.
I do not know whether the Government are aware of the extreme confusion which exists at present between district councils and county councils on the old question of who does what. If this were purely a matter of the rights, powers and privileges of councillors, it would not matter a great deal. But the issue is much more important than that. It involves the question of who is to do a job, where a person is to be employed, whether somebody will lose his present employment, and whether he and his family will have to move to another location. All these factors tend to add to the considerable confusion which now exists between the counties and districts.
Authorities are working hard at the problem and joint consultative committees are already trying to thrash out these matters and many have not reached any agreement. It may be that they will not reach any firm agreement for some time. Therefore, we must set some deadline or time limit, otherwise there may be a possibility that districts and county councils, even after the new local government structure is created, will still disagree and still need to go to the Secretary of State to ask for a direction. I do not think that will happen, but under subsection (4) there is a danger that some authorities will not have got themselves in a position to apply for a direction.
Even more important, some authorities will find that, as a result of the effects of the Boundary Commission's proposals, between 1974 and 1977 whole areas of their districts or counties, in the interests of good local government, will be moved from one area to another. Therefore, it

is essential that agency agreements be entered into since any greediness on the part of either district councils or county councils could be disastrous for local government.
The situation would not be so hopeless if the subsection were to be deleted. It is possible that some future Government could discontinue the arrangement. If the Secretary of State considered that the situation had gone on long enough, he could introduce legislation to put a stop to it. However, it is now too early to lay down a deadline of 1st April, 1974. Although the provision is a good one—and we congratulate the Government and the other place on including it in the Bill—we feel that this subsection could quite easily be deleted. It would do no harm if it were omitted, because subsequent legislation could be brought in to deal with it. It would do harm to retain it, because it limits the Secretary of State in deciding on any directions.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: It might be convenient if I intervene at this stage. I assume that I may address my remarks not only to the Amendments, but to the substance of the Clause, and then perhaps I need not speak again.
It is well known to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave certain undertakings on Report to meet the very proper representations that we had received on the agency arrangements under Clause 100 and that it was necessary to provide some machinery to reach finality on negotiations.
There are various ways in which local authorities can join together in carrying out their functions. A number of these ways involve the setting up of joint committees, joint purchase of materials, and the carrying out of common services under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act, 1970. Among the flexible arrangements permitted in Clause 100 is the possibility that one authority may make arrangements for the discharge of any of those functions by any other authority. There are a great many circumstances in which it would be convenient and economical for one authority to act as the agent of another either on a particular occasion or on a continuing basis.
But we still wish to retain a certainty in the carrying-out of the functions given to the authorities under the Act. If an authority is to act as a continuing agent for another, the arrangement will of course have repercussions on the staffing requirements and management structure of both the principal and the agent authorities. We think it is essential that the staff should not be left in doubt as to the functions to be carried out by their employing authority, and that the employing authority should work out its management structure at the earliest possible stage.
The provisions of the Bill will mean that the statutory responsibility for certain functions will be moved from one level of authority to another. There will be that movement of functions from the position as we know it today. In some cases it will be from district to county and in others from county to district. It may be sensible for the district authority, if it is the district which is surrendering certain functions, to continue to exercise particular functions for which it already has the staff, the experienced team. In other cases this may work in the opposite direction; specialised professional teams may be employed at county level, and it would be appropriate for them to be kept intact and for the county to undertake functions as agent of the district to which the Bill gives those functions. I do not want to attempt any precise, comprehensive catalogue of the circumstances in which one authority may act as agent for another.
The point which emerges very clearly is that where agency arrangements are to operate from 1st April, 1974 it is of the utmost importance that they should be finalised as soon as possible so that each authority can make its plans. In particular, the officers and staff should know clearly what the authority by which they will be employed after reorganisation will undertake, what sort of staff it will require and what sort of management structure it will require.
The new Clause arises from discussions on Report. Although the Clause appears to the House in detail only on the Lords Amendments, I think that it was fairly fully explained at that stage. First, the interested Government Departments—my

own Department and those concerned—will draw up some guidance or advice on the circumstances in which agency arrangements might be appropriate. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) was exaggerating a little in saying that there was confusion at present. Of course, there is uncertainty, and we hope that we can dispel it by issuing guidance as soon as possible when the Bill receives Royal Assent and we know its exact contents. Not only will the guidance be on the circumstances under which arrangements might conveniently be made—those circumstances will include and be influenced by the existing teams of staff and officers, of specialised staff particularly—but we shall try to assist in saying what sort of agreements might be entered into. I hope that this will provide a useful framework within which the joint committees of existing authorities can discuss possibilities and within which the new authorities can reach quick, final agreements as soon as possible after they have been elected in the spring of 1973. We do not want to wait for the working out of these agreements until the authorities are elected. There are already the joint committees working, and there is no reason why they should not go a long way in the next few months before the spring of 1973 in working out those arrangements.
Then we come to the point that we should guard against the possibility that in some instances such voluntary arrangements will not be reached. For such cases—and I hope that they will be very few and far between—the new Clause provides the machinery under which an authority can apply to the appropriate Minister—not always my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the appropriate Minister for the function concerned—for a direction. Such a direction could settle not only whether the agency arrangement should be entered into but also, if necessary, the terms and extent of that arrangement. I hope that this appeals machinery will be used only as a last resort. It is very much better that authorities should come to agreement between themselves. The last thing we want to do is to ask the Secretary of State to act as arbitrator. Therefore, our guidance to authorities in the early stages will be guidance to enable


them to reach agreement between themselves, and we shall not encourage appeals to the Secretary of State.
The appeals machinery relates only to agency arrangements which will operate from April, 1974. It is essentially a device to promote the efficient changeover to the new system. It is not a permanent feature of our local government reorganisation that there should be an appeal to the Secretary of State whenever two authorities cannot agree. In the long term, agency arrangements should be a matter for voluntary agreement between the authorities. So we have limited it to the extent that the Secretary of State will only act as arbitrator in arrangements reached which are to start from April, 1974. However, arrangements which operate when the new authorities take over their full functions in 1974 should be designed to continue with certainty for a few years so that the new authorities and their officers can settle down without the prospect of further change just round the corner. In voluntary arrangements between authorities I should expect this point to be covered by agreement that the arrangement should last for a certain period of years. However, if they have to appeal to the Secretary of State for a direction, then the direction, having set out the agency arrangement between the authorities, will state that it is not to be altered for up to five years except by a fresh direction.
Thus the appeal machinery will be a purely transitional arrangement which will apply only to arrangements made to start in April, 1974, so as to give them some permanency so that the staff and the authorities concerned can go ahead with the new job under reorganisation.
The Amendment, which seeks to remove subsection (4), would mean that there would be a permanent right of appeal to Ministers from either county councils or district councils regarding whether these agency arrangements should operate, and, if so, on what terms. I should think that this is wholly contrary to the spirit not only of the Bill, but of Clause 100 which seeks to have voluntary arrangements between the local authorities concerned.
I appreciate that the view put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is shared by some of the local authority associations. However, when the associations are constantly complaining both to myself and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there ought to be less intervention by central Government, that they should be allowed to get on with the job without central Government intervening, I find it rather astonishing that they should be pressing for a permanent power of veto and direction in the hands of Ministers covering the relationship between one local authority and another over the complete range of executive authorities and in relation to most of the functions.

Mr. Oakes: If the subsection were left out and the Secretary of State thought that something had gone on too long and was dissatisfied, he need not make a direction. Why are the Government tying his hands behind his back? There may be an exceptional case when he would want to make a direction.

Mr. Page: We do not want to leave the local authorities in any doubt about any change in the functions which they arrange between themselves. We want to reach finality at this stage so that the staff and elected members know what functions each authority will carry out. If we leave it wide open for them to come to the Secretary of State, we shall reach no finality on the matter.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am particularly concerned with and interested in this area. Why does the Minister feel that this is a purely temporary matter? Are not new issues bound to arise continually? It is endemic in the whole nature of the setup of the different levels of authority. This is the strongly held feeling in planning circles. Will not the Secretary of State require the power for that reason?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Page: This is just the power that we do not want—a sort of Big Brother attitude by the Secretary of State, a power of veto over what the local authorities may wish to arrange between themselves. The Bill states the functions which each local authority shall carry out. If they wish to arrange between themselves for this or that function to be carried out on an agency arrangement by one or


the other, it is for them to arrange that between themselves.
At the outset, there is a necessity for some arbitration, because at the outset we are taking over staffs from the existing local authorities into new local authorities—with different functions, if they carry out the functions as set out in the Bill.
What we want is for the new local authorities to make the best of the existing local authority staffs, but it will not be necessary in future for them to be directed by the Secretary of State as to how they should manage their affairs. It is only at the commencement of this reorganisation that it is necessary for someone to come in as arbitrator.

Mr. John Silkin: The Minister says that he does not want a Big Brother attitude by the Secretary of State, but under the new Clause the Secretary of State would intervene only on application. My idea of a Big Brother is someone who intervenes willy-nilly, but here it will happen only where the council applies to the Secretary of State and says, "We have reached a deadlock; can you help us out?" They may even regret their application because he may come down on the other side. He may not be a Big Brother after all.
How does the Minister see a situation resolving itself in which the district council and the county council have genuinely come to a total deadlock, where they want some help—not a Big Brother, but just someone who can sort them out?

Mr. Page: They would have guidance and assistance from the Department and from my right hon. Friend under those circumstances—advice, but not direction at that stage. We wish to leave it to them to settle between themselves. It would not be in the spirit of the reorganisation of local government to have directions under these circumstances. We are always ready—no doubt the local authorities think that we are too ready at times—to give advice. I often think that we send out far too many circulars of advice. But on this, if they find themselves in a deadlock, we are always ready to give advice.

Mr. George Thomas: I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but where the advice is not sufficient to enable them to reach agreement

and two local authorities ask the Minister to arbitrate, is he saying that he considers it unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have the power so to do?

Mr. Page: Yes, I do. This goes to the very basis of this reorganisation. The appeal machinery is necessary at the outset because we will be dealing with things which there exist—the management structure, the teams, the staff and so on. It would present difficulties if the local authorities did not have some arbitrator to decide where functions should go, having regard to the staffs being where they are. But after this transitional period, after they have got it settled, it would be fatal to the proper working of the local authorities to give them the opportunity to come to the Secretary of State to settle disputes if deadlock arises. I do not believe that they will. I believe that by reasonable arrangements between local authorities no such position will arise, but if it does we shall be willing to give advice if we are asked to do so.

Mr. Silkin: I hate to harass the right hon. Gentleman, but let us get it straight. He and I know, in our former professional capacities, that people who have a dispute can sue one another in court or they can go to arbitration. If they go to arbitration, it is a voluntary action in which they are saying "We have reached a deadlock. On our own initiative, we want someone to come in and help." To say that the Minister is always there, like Mr. Cheeryble, to give advice and guidance is very kind and attractive but it does not necessarily resolve the difficulty. It may be that a district council and a county council, faced with a deadlock, will want this difficulty to be definitely resolved. But it may be that they will not, and if they do not it may be that the Minister will not have to come into it. It will only come into issue where someone wants a decision.

Mr. Page: Let me take the two points which arise from what the right hon. Gentleman says. First, he asks us to create an entirely new power for the Secretary of State. At present, no Secretary of State has any power to tell local authorities to agree on how their functions should be carried out. This is not an agreement as between local authorities or an arrangement of their functions as between the two. This is a taking over by the Secretary of State himself.


The Secretary of State has to act as Big Brother in such circumstances. That is something that I hope we shall not carry into other functions of local government.
I am being asked now to create an entirely new power, and it would surely be understood from our doing that that we had no confidence in the new authorities we are setting up—less confidence than we have in the existing authorities. If we do not have that power in relation to existing authorities we should not create new powers to govern the new authorities in that way.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that if two local authorities come to a deadlock and cannot decide, they go to the Secretary of State. If they go to him by voluntary agreement, they go voluntarily agreed to accept his decision, as they could accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman as an arbitrator—

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman has too much integrity to want to misinterpret what I am saying. I am saying that there may be a case in which there is a deadlock and one authority, not necessarily both authorities, wants to go to the Secretary of State and ask for his decision.

Mr. Page: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for leading him right up the garden path to the point of interruption and so on, because that is just the case we do not want to arise—the case of an authority approaching the Secretary of State in order to force its will on another local authority. This goes right to the root of things. If they come voluntarily and say "We want someone to decide this for us", that is voluntary agreement and they can go either to the Secretary of State or to the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that I can carry the matter any further. I am perhaps tediously repeating myself. I hope that I have made the principle of the appeals machinery quite clear; that it is transitional, and that we hope that local authorities will, before April, 1974, settle exactly what functions shall be carried out by each local authority.

Mr. George Thomas: The Minister has failed to satisfy us of his awareness of this problem. I have listened to him for

many years, both from this side and now from the Government Front Bench. I know him well enough to realise when he is skating on thin ice and making the most of a poor argument. I must say that I am getting the uneasy impression that on these 633 Amendments the Government intend to treat the Opposition with the same arrogance that they showed on the Common Market Amendments, and that they will oppose any Amendments proposed from this side because—and I understand their difficulties—of expediency. But if ever the merits of an argument ought to be taken into account, they should be taken into account on this issue. The Minister is quite right in saying that this aspect goes to the heart of the matter. That is why we are raising it now.
The Minister has put forward the view that if he keeps these powers which he wants until 1st April, 1974, and then keeps them until 2nd April, 1974, he will become Big Brother; he will somehow be imposing the will of the Government on an unwilling local authority. But my right hon. and hon. Friends by their interventions have already blown that argument sky high, because the Secretary of State, whether for the Environment or for Wales, will be called upon only if agreement between authorities is not possible and they wish the Department to declare upon the matter.
We believe that the Government are living in cloud-cuckoo land if they believe that agreement on these agencies will be completed by 1st April, 1974, and that there will be a rush to meet the deadline, which the Government have refused to postpone so as to give time for these agency arrangements to be made. They know that they are pushing on to the shadow authorities responsibilities almost impossible of fulfilment in 12 months. Yet the Minister says that he is not prepared to give to local authorities the advantage of the right of appeal to the Minister for decision after 1st April, 1974.
Everyone with knowledge and experience of local government will soon teach some of the new authorities that changes are desirable. Obviously some disagreements will arise between district councils and county councils as to what agencies should be entered into after 1st April,


1974. Concerned as I am and as we all are about servants in local government having a sense of security, that is not a basis on which decisions should be taken concerning the character of local government.
The Minister said that the staff have a right to know what will happen. The staff will be aware, and experience will prove, that there is a necessity for some changes to be taken. We agree that appeal to the Secretary of State should be a last resort and that we should not encourage appeals. None the less, we feel that we would be failing in our duty to local authorities if we did not listen to their judgment on this matter. This is the view not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself but that of the local authorities which are alarmed at the decision which the Government have taken.
It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister to tell local authorities that they do not know their business and that he knows better than they do. After all, he has created the deadline. He has created the two-tier system. He has decided on

a higgledy-piggledy arrangement of functions which is bound to cause great argument. Therefore, he should at least say to the local authority associations which are disturbed that he will meet them.

The Amendment is not a small one; it means much to local authorities. I hope that the Minister will not force us to go into the Lobby. However, we shall have no option but to go into the Lobby unless he is prepared to say that the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the local authorities have given him cause for second thoughts. The Government have swallowed a lot as a result of what happened in the other place. They have been standing on their heads on all sorts of issues but here all they are asked to do is to be reasonable, to remove the date and to say that this authority, this power, for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment shall continue as long as the local authorities want it.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 150.

Division No. 350.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Allen, Scholefield
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bidwell Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Kerr Russell
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ewing, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)



Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, R[...]ginald
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas




Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Tinn, James
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Torney, Tom
Watkins, David



Tuck, Raphael
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Varley, Eric G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Green, Alan
Osborn, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Parkinson, Cecil


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Ba[...]lel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hastings, Stephen
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Body, Richard
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornby, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rost, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brewis, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
St. John Stevas, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Kinsey, J. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chapman, Sydney
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Spence, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Crowder, F. P.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Dean, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F
Maddan, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Elliott R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Fortescue Tim
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wiggin, Jerry


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gorst, John
Murton, Oscar



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Gray, Hamish
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 109

SUBSIDIARY POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 162, in page 77, line 4, at end insert:
(4) In this section "local authority" includes the Common Council.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 188, 189 and 190.

Mr. Page: The Bill defines "local authorities" in Clause 256(1) as a county council, the Greater London Council, a district council, a London borough Council or a parish or community council. This leaves the Common Council of the City of London. If powers are to be given to the Common Council such as are to be given to the principal authorities in the Bill, it needs specific mention. The Amendments do just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 110

APPOINTMENT OF STAFF

Lords Amendment: No. 163, in page 77, line 37, at end insert—
(dd) the chief education officer of the Inner London Education Authority appointed by virtue of section 30(4) of the 1963 Act

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The statutory requirement to appoint a chief education officer under Section 88 of the Education Act, 1944, is preserved in the Bill under Clause 110(4)(b), but the chief education officer of the Inner London Education Authority is appointed under Section 30(4) of the London Government Act, 1963, as well as under Section 88 of the 1944 Act. In order to preserve the requirement to appoint a chief education officer of ILEA, Section 30(4) of the 1963 Act needs to be included in Clause 110(4). That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120

APPROPRIATION OF LAND BY PRINCIPLE COUNCILS

Lords Amendment: No. 164, in page 83, line 30, leave out from "shall" to "in" in line 31 and insert:
be subject to the rights of other persons

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we to take Lords Amendments Nos. 165 to 182.

Mr. Page: All these Amendments deal with the appropriation of land by local authorities and the disposal of that land. I will take them in groups and the first group is No. 164, No. 176 and No. 181. This deals with the appropriation of land by a local authority. The intention has always been that the basic law relating to the appropriation of land by local authorities should remain as it is under the Local Government Act, 1933, and that we should move those Sections from that Act into this Bill.
The Act provided that any appropriation of land is subject to any covenant or restriction affecting the use of the land, but where compensation is payable under the appropriate Section of the 1933 Act those rights could be over-ridden by the execution of works after the appropriation. On looking closely at Clauses 120, 124 and 129 there seems to be some doubt as to whether we had repeated that power for local authorities. These Amendments put the matter beyond doubt.
9.30 p.m.
Dealing with the group of Amendments Nos. 165, 170 to 173, 175, 177 and 180, the object of the provisions for the appropriation or disposal of land under the Bill of not more than 250 square yards from any park or public open space is to enable these small areas to be used for other purposes without the need for the Secretary of State to give his consent or for special parliamentary procedure. This is giving to local authorities freedom of action over these comparatively small areas. This object could not be realised if the purpose for which the land was appropriated or disposed of could not be carried out because the land was fettered by some trust for the public. These Amendments remove any doubt about this by declaring that appropriation or disposal under the relevant Section frees the land from any trust arising solely from its being held as public trust land.
I come now to Lords Amendments Nos. 166, 167, 168, 174, 178, 182. The effect of these Amendments is that in relation to allotment land appropriation and disposal will continue to be governed by the existing provisions of the allotments legislation. We have announced that we propose in due course to submit to the House legislation amending the law relating to allotments but it is right that we should retain it in the Bill and carry out the reform properly later. These Amendments retain the requirements for ministerial consent as set out in the allotment legislation. They are a little more stringent than if we applied the Bill to them.
Commons are affected by various local Acts, some more some less stringent. To avoid duplication we want to retain those Acts to apply to appropriation or disposal of commons and not to apply the provisions of the Bill.
I come now to the small group of Amendments, 169, 179. Although Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act, 1965—that is the one which makes certain provision for compensation for injurious affection—applies to most enactments under which local authorities acquire land, there are still a few cases to which the old Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, applies. Therefore we have had to mention that Act, and particularly Section 68, to retain the law as it is.

Mr. Denis Howell: May I utter a word of welcome for these proposals? It is right to give local authorities greater freedom and it is even more right to retain the restrictions dealing with allotment land. I have no doubt that the Minister receives a great number of representations from the allotment movement, as I do, which on the whole thinks that it is being badly treated by Governments of both political persuasions. The movement does not have the attention that it deserves, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that legislation is to be introduced.
In the meantime it is important that the rights of allotment holders should be protected and that local authorities and others should not be allowed to use allotment land for other purposes, however desirable. In our urban environment in particular it is important that people should have somewhere where they can dig and grow things and get the joy from doing such things.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause D

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE ON CONCURRENT FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 183, in page 94, line 11, at end insert new Clause D:
D. Two or more local authorities may make arrangements for defraying any expenditure incurred by one of them in exercising any functions exercisable by both or all of them.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause enables local authorities to make arrangements among them-

selves for defraying expenditure on concurrent functions. The Association of Municipal Corporations is particularly concerned to avoid a situation in which a district is doubly charged for a service, such as swimming pools, if the district provides them within its area but they are also provided by the county elsewhere within the county boundary.
Ideally the association would like a rigid statutory formula which would permit the district to get abatement of the county precept if the district exercised a concurrent function. Such a proposition would, as the AMC recognises, run counter to the philosophy of the reorganisation, that we are creating competent and responsible bodies which can be relied on generally to make their own arrangements with each other. Thus the new Clause conforms with the same principle for which I was arguing in the last debate.
The new Clause goes as far as possible to meet the AMC's concern. It makes clear that local authorities may make arrangements between themselves about the cost of carrying out a concurrent function but it does not dictate the nature of the arrangements in any way. In the case of concurrent functions, it will be up to each authority to decide how to exercise its power. We cannot say that if a district provides a swimming pool it should be let off a certain proportion of the rates or county precept for swimming pools applied elsewhere in the county. It would confuse local government too much if we tried to dictate from the centre. If local authorities choose to make a voluntary arrangement among themselves by contribution, that will be splendid. In this Clause we merely enable local authorities to make arrangements among themselves for defraying expenditure on concurrent functions.

Mr. Denis Howell: Again the House is faced with the absurdity of the Government's proposals for two-tier government. A division of responsibility has been put into the Bill in a most illogical manner which will have the most ridiculous repercussions for ratepayers. The Minister has very fairly set out the position, but there is a fear among many district councils and the AMC and others that in the case of a number of services,


particularly museums, parks, recreational facilities, off-street parking and even industrial development, ratepayers in some districts will be asked to pay twice for the service. That is the concern which I express.
The Government have recognised the dilemma which their Bill has produced by supporting Lords Amendment No. 183. Unfortunately they have not made it mandatory. It is permissive; the word "may" appears in it. I wish to illustrate the situation which may well arise. If a district council provides, under the new local government set-up, a sports centre for its citizens, it will pay for it with the appropriate help from the rate support grant. If subsequently the county council says "We want another sports center", perhaps a regional sports centre at the other end of the county, it will be able to precept on the district council even though the citizens living in the district council will not use the centre, which in Devon, for example, may be 50 or 80 miles away. It is clearly a monstrous proposal that the ratepayers should pay twice, once for what they provide themselves and subsequently in respect of the provision made by the county council.

Mr. Page: Is not that exactly the present position? There is no power in the Secretary of State to direct that there shall be an allowance on the county precept because the district provides something of that sort.

Mr. Howell: I do not think it has ever arisen, certainly not in the six years during which I was Minister for sport, for the simple reason that we were not then building regional centres, but now we are. Certainly we did not build many swimming pools, I regret to say. We built more than had been built before, but capital for local authority projects was very limited by the capital budget.
This has now become a real problem. Whether or not the Minister was right

in saying that this is the present position, we are now looking at the question of local government de novo. We are trying to get it right. If the situation was wrong previously, this is the moment to put it right.

If this happens in the range of services which I have mentioned, what fair machinery will be created to put it right? If we do not put it right, there will be a sense of grievance among many ratepayers that they are paying twice. Clearly their grievance must be met.

The Minister has gone part of the way to meet the grievance by saying that local authorities may make arrangements. In other words, he is hoping that two local authorities concerned will be reasonable people and will reach a reasonable agreement. However, time and again as we have gone through the Bill we have observed the division of responsibility between a county authority and a district authority, and the Minister has had to write into the Bill provision for the settlement of disputes, because he knows perfectly well that often neighbouring local authorities can adopt the most unreasonable attitudes towards each other. There is no such machinery in this new Clause, and that is what gives rise to great concern on these benches. It is particularly of concern to the Association of Municipal Corporations.

We should like the Minister to say that he will make arrangements which will be much more definitive in this matter and see that in no circumstances, where he is dealing with concurrent functions and expenditure, should the ratepayers be imposed upon twice for one set of services. I hope that he can meet us on this. If he cannot I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to register in the Division Lobby their dismay at that prospect.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 131.

Division No. 351.]
AYES
[9.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bray, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Benyon, W.
Brewis, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark


Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chapman, Sydney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bowden, Andrew
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)




Clegg, Walter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cormack, Patrick
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
St. John Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Soref, Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sutcliffe, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Parkinson, Cecil



Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Micheal Jopling and


Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McGuire, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bidwell Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Greville
Paget, R. T.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Ewing, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foot, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Dr. John
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie







Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Swain, Thomas
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tinn, James
Wallace, George



Torney, Tom
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tuck, Raphael
Weitzman, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Varley, Eric G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 134

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES NOT OTHERWISE AUTHORISED

Lords Amendment: No. 184, in page 94, line 20, at end insert:
(1A) It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under subsection (1) above includes power to do so by contributing towards the defraying of expenditure by another local authority in or in connection with the exercise of that other authority's functions.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment Lords Amendments Nos. 185 to 187 may be discussed.

Mr. Speed: Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 allow local authorities of all classes to spend up to a 2p rate in any one year for the benefit of their area or inhabitants in any field in which they have no express statutory powers.
When we considered the Bill earlier a limit of ½p was agreed, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we did not regard that limit as necessarily the one which would be appropriate in the circumstances of 1974 when the revised power would operate. He then explained that he proposed to review the figure before 1974 and to adjust it by order, as he has power to do under subsection (3).
The new figure of 2p proposed by another place anticipates the review my right hon. Friend had in mind. The original limit, which was only a holding operation, was almost certainly too low. The new figure of 2p appears to be nearer the right figure and I recommend its acceptance.
My right hon. Friend's power to adjust the figure again in the future, either for

all authorities or authorities of a particular class, still exists.
Amendment No. 184 makes it clear that the free 2p may be used to enable one authority to contribute towards the expenses of another in connection with a function of that latter authority.
Amendment No. 187 is a purely consequential drafting Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the Amendment very strongly. We strove in Committee to obtain an improvement on the figure originally in the Bill. We were turned down, even though with gracious words. Apparently, another place has a great deal more effect in bringing about alterations than we do. We all want to see local authorities making use of the opportunity to develop new types of services—

It being 10 o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We must all accept that it is of the greatest importance that there should be an opportunity for local authorities to develop new lines of services where these are not specifically excluded from their powers, rather than taking the view that they are entitled only to undertake work that is specifically approved.
For all these reasons, we hope very much that good use will be made of the provisions at the more realistic figure mentioned.

Mr. George Thomas: We in Wales are also very glad that this change has been made. We welcome conversion, even in another place. I believe that local authorities in Wales, which are by no means


mean and which like to support activities in the general good outside their own scope, will be encouraged by this proposal.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entries.]

Clause 141

POWER TO ENCOURAGE VISITORS AND PROVIDE CONFERENCE AND OTHER FACILITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 191, in page 98, line 29, leave out "otherwise" and insert:
other means in the United Kingdom".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I understand that with this Amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 192 and 193.

Mr. Speed: I should like to return to Lords Amendment No. 191 later, because I may have something to say when I have heard the views of hon. Members.
I wish to say briefly what Lords Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 are concerned with. They follow from a new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) in Committee to give additional powers to local authorities for the attraction of visitors and tourists. The Amendments tidy it up and extend the provisions introduced in Committee. They represent a package removal of financial limits in the existing legislation. All local authorities—I stress "all"—are to have publicity powers. There are to be no general restrictions on advertising within the United Kingdom, and there is a specific power which could be used to enable local authorities to contribute to approved bodies such as the statutory English and Wales Tourists Boards and to the non-statutory regional tourist boards, which without this provision would have had to rely on the free 2p, which we have just been debating, for local authority contributions.
An important power for London is that the GLC's powers to attract visitors to London are to be given also to the boroughs and the City of London. These provisions are in addition to those in Clause 141 which gives powers to attract visitors and provide facilities for recreation, conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions.
I do not wish to enter into the realms of controversy, but it is important, considering the advantages and challenge of the Common Market which this country will be entering next year, to realise that local authorities may wish to do even more by way of encouraging tourism. This is true of the new local authorities, the London boroughs and the City of London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter did the Bill, the House, and the local authorities a service when he moved the new Clause. Lords Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 strengthen and extend it. Therefore, having formally moved Amendment No. 191, I will listen with interest to the debate.

Mr. John Hannam: I ask the House to disagree with Lords Amendment No. 191.
When in Committee the Government accepted the new Clause giving local authorities to provide and advertise tourism facilities, there was general and universal satisfaction that in the modern context of national and international tourism a satisfactory framework of regional, local and national tourism and resort promotion was being created.
The removal by the Government of restrictions on spending under the 1931 and 1936 Acts meant that many British holiday and conference resorts could not only expand their facilities—for example, build car parks and conference centres—but, more important, could publicise them both in Britain and abroad. However, the Amendment passed in the other place seeks to deny the right of local authorities to advertise abroad. It seeks to channel all the advertising and publicising through the British Tourist Authority. I do not think anyone would seek to belittle the value of the BTA. Certainly the success of our tourism is due to its promotional efforts in the past. However, it would be totally wrong to shackle our holiday and conference centres to official statutory bodies like that.
Amendment No. 193 dealt with subscriptions and contributions to such statutory organisations. I emphatically state that our local authorities wish and


intend to maintain their full level of contributions to the BTA. However, when a specific overseas promotional scheme, such as a twin-towns or twin-cities link, or Brighton selling the advantages of its proposed £3 million conference centre to Europe, is proposed, this should be allowed on top of the normal BTA advertising and publicity.
There are many individual promotion schemes which our resorts, both large and small, will wish to develop, as well as their usual involvement in the main BTA Guides and Travel Workshops. Any fears that support for the BTA will wane are groundless. I know that the British Resorts Association, the AMC and our main body of resorts are firmly against the Amendment. Therefore, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Robert Adley: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) who has been very diligent for many months in this activity. Many months ago, he and I and others received a deputation, led by the Town Clerk of Brighton, to deal with the substance of this Amendment amongst other points, because they were concerned about not being able to take advantage of the opportunity to which they were looking forward of promoting their own centres individually rather than through a statutory body.
One of the disquieting points about the Bill is the way in which in the last few weeks and months Amendments seem to have crept in in another place. This has left many of us with a great deal of scrutinising to do, and I admit that sometimes I find this not so easy as it might be. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to reject this Amendment.
The content and the manner of the Amendment deserve some examination. Moving it in another place, Lord Sandford said that it would
… enable local authorities generally more effectively to promote tourism and to assist the various tourist boards.
That is not an opinion with which I would in any way agree. If he had substituted the word "finance" for the word "assist", that would have been more

accurate, and that is not what we should be trying to do from these benches.
I reject the theory that Big Brother knows best when it comes to promoting conference and tourist facilities.
Later in his remarks, Lord Sandford said:
… it is felt that when it comes to advertising abroad it would, on the whole, be more efficient if that were to be done through an approved agency. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 18th September 1972, c. 830.]
Again, that is not something with which I could possibly agree.
Finally, he referred to the powers of the GLC to attract visitors to London, although, he said, that "seems hardly necessary". The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has got into enough trouble this summer for some of his remarks about how London was overflowing with visitors. None of us with a serious interest in the promotion of tourism in this country can allow these remarks to be made without comment.
Some of our resorts—I think particularly of Harrogate and Torquay—have consistently and effectively promoted their tourist and conference facilities overseas, producing literature in many languages. Many of these progressive local authorities would feel severely handicapped if the Amendment were accepted.
If Barton-on-Sea wishes to advertise itself in Outer Mongolia, and its local authority feels that this is a good idea, why should we wish in any way to prevent it. I have been perturbed in the last few weeks at the way in which it has been possible to acquire the services of a friendly neighbourhood Lord to put on the Statute Book Amendments to principles previously accepted in this House.
As the City of Bristol intends next year to celebrate its 600th anniversary as a city and county, and would be prevented under the Amendment from advertising itself in North America, I would urge my hon. Friends and the Government to have second thoughts about the Amendment.

Mr. A. P. Costain: My hon. Friends have made this argument clear. I would only point out that Folkestone is the nearest resort to the Continent. It would be absurd if it could not advertise in Boulogne, 20 miles 


away, but could advertise in the North of Scotland, 400 miles away. This shows the absurdity of the situation. I hope that the Government will accept our feelings on this.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I must express some sympathy with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My concern with the tourist industry is principally to try to deal with the very serious problem of seasonal unemployment in many of our coastal and resort areas. Anything which will introduce some flexibility into the holiday pattern is to be encouraged. I can see no reason why local authorities should not be able to do this to try to extend their season at either end.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Adley) said about Bristol's 600th anniversary Thanks to him and his hon. Friends, this will be rather more of a wake, since the Bill will degrade Bristol virtually to a jazzed-up parish council. I hope that a number of people will come from overseas however to take part in this event.
As he is one of the chief assassins, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East should now presume to speak on behalf of the city which he represents. It is a serious problem to try to keep people in the areas and to make not only the industry thriving in the sense of hoteliers and developers doing well but also the people who man and staff the industry, so that they can feel some security, so that we are not entirely dependent on people who are perhaps looking around for a job but can rely on people who can work for a worthwhile career.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: Blackpool has been advertising overseas for tourist purposes since before the war and it would be stunned if it were told that it had to stop doing so. I recognise that the British Tourist Authority has a general duty to promote the interests of the nation's tourism overseas. It is doing so very well, and I support it. However, I do not think that its general rôle need exclude local authorities from pursuing tourist targets overseas. That is what is happening more and more in the present situation.
Blackpool is studying the possibility of twinning with a town in Germany. If that is achieved it will certainly want to promote visits to Blackpool from that town and the surrounding area. It is also accustomed to promote overseas its conference facilities. It has recently entertained a large conference of Rotary International.
If the Lords Amendment were accepted, that sort of activity, whether it involved advertising overseas or visits by officials of the town overseas for tourist promotion purposes, would have to be stopped. The British Tourist Authority could not undertake that sort of special target activity as well as the local authority, even if it had enough money to do so, which seems to be unlikely.
We also disagree with their Lordships because we want the Bill to give more responsibility to local authorities. This is the sort of area in which they should enjoy such responsibility.

Mr. Peter Rees: I support my hon. Friends in their opposition to Amendment No. 191. I am puzzled to know why it is necessary to limit the authority of local authorities to advertise and encourage tourism only inside the United Kingdom. Was it by design or inadvertence?
I represent a constituency on the edge of the Channel, and I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain): Dover is the resort nearest the French coast, not Folkestone.
Apart from the normal influx of tourists coming to enjoy the beauties of East Kent, there is a considerable flow of day tourists coming from Boulogne, Ostend and Calais. I hope that the shops at Dover and Deal do well out of that flow. Why should not the new Kent County Council or the new authority of Greater Dover advertise on the continent. At the present time, local authorities in my constituency advertise abroad for new industry for East Kent? I can see no logic in channelling such expenditure on promoting tourism only through the British Tourist Authority. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be moved by these considerations to reconsider the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: As usual, the North-East must fight its own


battles. Although the region is delighted to receive the visit of a Lord—his Lordship is coming up to have a look at us in the next few days—the Lord concerned does not know a thing about the battle which we have to fight in the North of England.
We have a lot of things to offer all over the world and my local authorities do not wish to be hampered. We have to fight our own battles, we have to stand on our own feet, and we do not want their Lordships interfering with what we think is right. For a long time we have had a special organisation called the North-East Development Council. That Council has gone all over the world trying—sometimes with success and sometimes not—to get people to establish industries in the North. Part of our programme has always been to let people overseas know what we have to offer. That was done not by Government but by an organisation of our own creation and it would be ridiculous if another place were allowed to crab what we want to do.
We have always had many exchange visits with Norway, and Norwegian ships land their cargoes at North Shields in my constituency. We have had a lot of twinning between our towns and Norwegian towns. We also have close links with Denmark. We would be horrified in the North of England to have our enterprise cramped.
I know that the people of the North of England are regarded by those in the South as barbarians. That may be because we go back so far in history and have so much to offer. We do not intend to have our ideas and our contribution interfered with by another place. I am glad that so many hon. Members are prepared to stand for the rights of our own local authorities to do as they think right. What would be the use of appealing to Lord Sandford, nice though he is in a personal sense, when he does not know anything about our enterprise or what we have to offer? I hope that the Lords Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The point of principle involved is: should these authorities be able to spend ratepayers' money on attracting visitors to within their precincts, or should they not? Once the point of principle is conceded, it is a matter of management

decision whether that money should be spent entirely within the United Kingdom, partially abroad, totally abroad, or just how it should be distributed. That is not a point of principle but a matter of management. It is therefore entirely in line with the Government's view that once the principle is decided that local authorities should have certain powers, the management decision on the exercise of those powers should be left as far as possible to the local authorities.
I see no compelling reason why local authorities should be given the right to spend money on attracting visitors, but that the power should be confined to those spending sterling rather than foreign currency—well, it has only to be stated in those terms to show how ridiculous the Lords Amendment is.
I am quite confident that the Government will join with back benchers in rejecting the Amendment, which we could do, if privilege is involved, by waiving privilege. That, however, is another matter which, though it might be procedurally interesting, might divert us from the main point of principle. I therefore look forward to Lords Amendment No. 191 being thrown back where it belongs, there to stay forever.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It has always seemed to me that the British Tourist Authority is responsible for dealing with all the problems of tourism overseas, while the English Tourist Authority, as it now is, is responsible for dealing with those problems at home. If local authorities are to be deprived of their right to consider what is best in their individual interest it will be against the general principle for which we have always fought and strove.
The Isle of Thanet has always spent a lot of money in encouraging people from Belgium, Holland and the Low Countries to visit us, and I want us to be able to continue to do so. It is in the right interests that we should do so. I do not believe that their Lordships, when considering this Amendment, ever recognised that this has been the practice for a very long time, and I hope that we shall disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Speaking as a Welsh Member, I pay tribute, first, to the work of the Welsh


Tourist Board on our behalf, but I support my hon. Friends in their view that local authorities must be given the flexibility they require in a case like this. There may be, for example, the problems of the timing of a campaign. The resort of Prestatyn is about to set up a new conference centre which will aim to attract visitors at a time when tourists are not actively being sought by the statutory body on behalf of all Wales. At times like that, it is valuable for Prestatyn to have flexibility to have its own advertising campaign to further its cause.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Many unfair things have been said about another place by certain hon. Members. It is not the Lords who dreamed up this Amendment but the Government, and the Government have done it because they have a tidy mind. It is a good thing to have a tiny mind on most things, but on this matter the Government are perhaps misinformed and have therefore come to the wrong conclusion. They had a very large Bill to contend with but on this matter there is a substantial body of opinion on both sides of the House that they are wrong and that we should leave the matter as it was when it left the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) referred to Bristol being a jazzed-up parish council. I hope that that will be written on his tombstone in Bristol. Whatever the status that Bristol in his view will have after reorganisation, it will have a substantial budget, even a substantial tourist budget. There is nothing wrong in Bristol promoting itself abroad, either in Bordeaux, for example, with which it is twinned, or with Timbuctoo. Indeed, perhaps Tynemouth could be twinned with Timbuctoo if we disagree with the Amendment.
I also support Weymouth on this occasion because my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) is at the other end of the earth, far from the joys of Weymouth. There is nothing wrong with Weymouth promoting itself in the Channel Islands. I am not sure whether it will not be allowed to do so if the Lords have their way, although it might be prohibited from promoting its interests further away.
The British Tourist Authority does a magnificent job. Tomorrow I go to sit on a statutory committee of the Authority, promoting the welfare of historic houses and perhaps even their owners. It does a better job than any of us can do individually, but we are small fry compared with those great local authorities which I am happy to support, especially the City of Bristol. There is nothing wrong with some of these local authorities pursuing their special interests.
The British Tourist Authority as a whole cannot possibly look after the interests of Bristol, Blackpool, Weymouth, Tynemouth, Lymington, Thanet, Exeter, Torquay, Dover—we have them all here. So I am sure that the Government, even if they have some misgivings about this, will let us have our way and see how we get on.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am entirely opposed to this Amendment for two reasons. First, it is contrary to Tory policy in that it interferes with the rights of local authorities to look after their own interests. Secondly, it is a total nonsense because among other things it would prevent a town like Blackpool advertising, say, in Dublin. For these two not unpowerful reasons, I hope that the Government will reject the Lords Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Speed: I thank hon. Members on both sides who have made this a short, sharp but very interesting debate. I want to put one or two things right.
First, Lords Amendment No. 191 would mean that all local authority advertising abroad would be channelled through a particular agency, in this case the British Tourist Authority. It does not mean a diminution in existing powers—I make that clear. Existing powers under the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931, at this present moment only apply to boroughs and districts. In addition, there are 11 authorities with their own Acts empowering them to advertise abroad. That is the existing situation.
I should like to make it clear that even if Amendment No. 191 were accepted, it would not take away any powers that local authorities now have. Nevertheless, it has been made clear that every hon. Member who has spoken feels that,


as we are re-organising local government, and particularly with growing internationalism, it would be better if local authorities had power to undertake their own advertising abroad if they wish to do so.
I am glad that a number of hon. Members have paid tribute to the British Tourist Authority, a body of considerable expertise and marketing experience. I hope that whatever is decided about the Amendment, local authorities will continue to use it and do so extensively. If the House were to disagree with the Lords Amendment, it would still be right and proper for there to be many local authorities using that expertise and experience. But if the House takes the course that I have forecast, I would still think that my Department, or the Department of Trade and Industry, should later send a circular to the new authorities to point out the considerable advantages of using the British Tourist Authority.
Nevertheless, I am impressed by all that has been said. The philosophy of the Bill is to give more rather than less freedom to local authorities. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). As she knows, I frequently visit the North of England and I agree with everything she said about the marvellous attractions of that part of the country. The philosophy and principle argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) are important. The new and larger and more viable authorities are to be entrusted with many more powers and we are to take from them the overshadowing control exercised by the Government.
I am confident that many if not most of them will continue to use the excellent services of the British Tourist Authority and in due course we shall be advising them about those services. However, accepting that local authorities are to have more freedom, I recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 142

PROVISION OF ENTERTAINMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 194, in page 99, line 4, at end insert—
(cc) the development and improvement of the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts and the crafts which serve the arts.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 142 provides the main enabling powers under which local authorities may contribute towards entertainments and the arts. However, the wording and the marginal note give pride of place to entertainment and dancing, to bands or orchestras, and nowhere mention arts or crafts. The regional arts associations have long pressed for more satisfactorily defined powers, and the object of the Amendment is specifically to mention the arts and the crafts which serve the arts. The wording of the Amendment closely follows the wording of the Arts Council Charter, but the references to the crafts are in response to the Crafts Advisory Committee.
Amendments Nos. 195, 196, 197 and 198 are consequential to No. 194, which gives local authorities powers to contribute to developing and improving knowledge and understanding of the arts and the crafts which serve the arts. This is a civilised and progressive Amendment that I am sure will commend itself to the House.

Mr. John Silkin: This Amendment is long overdue and it is something with which the whole House will be delighted.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The whole point about this Amendment is that the more people and interests involved with this activity the better. I am delighted that the Government have managed to include this in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 148

ARRANGEMENTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF MONEY

Lords Amendment: No. 199, in page 104, line 9, leave out Clause 148 and insert new Clause E—

New Clause "E"

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

"E. Without prejudice to section 109 above, every local authority shall make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs and shall secure that one of their officers has responsibility for the administration of those affairs."

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause has been tabled in response to strong representations made by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants who were concerned that the Bill did not do enough to secure and maintain the financial integrity of local government. I understand that the Clause is generally acceptable to the Institute. It did not go as far as the institute would have liked because it would have liked the statutory post of treasurer to have been retained. As the House knows, this would have conflicted with the view that we have taken that each authority should be able to adopt a management structure most likely in its view to meet its needs. We have not gone as far as that but this is an improvement which will meet the needs of people professionally engaged in local government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 151

ACCOUNTS TO BE AUDITED BY DISTRICT OR APPROVED AUDITOR

Lords Amendment: No. 200, in page 104, line 34, after "authorities" insert:
and the accounts of the rate fund and superannuation fund of the City".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that we might also discuss Lords Amendments 201 to 234 and Question No. 244.
These are tidying up Amendments. The first relates to the City of London. At present there are a number of provisions relating to the audit of different sections of the City's accounts. The accounts relating to social services and to the levy and collection of the poor rate are subject to district audit. The accounts of the superannuation fund and of general rate fund income and expenditure, other than social services, are audited by auditors appointed under local Acts of 1970 and 1931.
The Amendments provide that those accounts maintained by the City in its capacity as a local authority will be audited in the same way as the audit of accounts of any other local authority.
Amendments 203, 204, 205 and 206 are designed to ensure the simplest possible machinery for nomination of auditors at parish level. Clause 151(2) provides for the initial selection and appointment of auditors by local authorities under Part VIII of the Bill. Clause 151(2)(c) provides that the district council shall resolve whether the accounts of parishes etc., within its area are to be audited by the district auditor or by an approved auditor. It is envisaged that the district council will consult the parishes before choosing the auditor, who need not be the same as the auditor for the district.
Parish councils may be formed after the initial selection of auditor has been made by 1st January, 1974, and in the post-April, 1974, period under Clauses 9, 27 to 29 and Part IV of the Bill. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that audit of the accounts of those parishes formed after 1st January, 1974, will be undertaken by the auditor appointed in accordance with the district council's original resolution. Thus, one council resolution can be effective in relation to all parish authorities, present or future, within their districts.
Amendment No. 207 and those associated with it are drafting Amendments, as is Amendment No. 211. Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 relate to Clause 151(10) which provides that where, for want of a resolution under Clause 151(2) or otherwise, an auditor has not been appointed for the audit of an authority's accounts the Secretary of State may direct that the accounts shall be audited by the district auditor. Under


Clause 151(10) the Secretary of State's direction has effect only as to the financial year specified and no provision is made for subsequent years.
The Amendments enable the direction to cover subsequent financial years. But at the same time they give the body concerned full power to change to an approved auditor for subsequent years, if they so wish. The direction will have effect as if the body itself had resolved that that the accounts should be audited by the district auditor. This means that the body will be free to change to an approved auditor in subsequent years by means of a resolution under Clause 151(3).
Clause 11 provides for the grouping of parish councils. Some grouped parish councils will straddle the boundaries of two adjoining district councils. The purpose of this Amendment is to place upon that district council which has the greater number of local government electors of the grouped parish the responsibility for appointing an auditor for the audit of the accounts of that grouped parish in accordance with Clause 151 of the Bill.
Lords Amendments Nos. 216 to 219 are drafting.
In regard to Lords Amendment No. 221, Clause 158 confers special powers on the district auditor in respect of illegality, misconduct and failure to account. He may apply to the courts for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law and, if he finds failure to account or losses due to misconduct, he is required to certify sums due from those responsible, who may appeal to the Courts against his decision.
These special powers and duties have not been conferred upon the approved auditor. They can, however, be exercised in respect of accounts audited by an approved auditor since it is open to the Secretary of State to direct an extraordinary audit by the district auditor at which the appropriate provisions of Clause 158 apply.
The code of practice for local government audit which was published by the Secretary of State in April, 1972 stated in paragraph 24 that it was proposed that an approved auditor should be under a specific duty to report to the Secretary of State any circumstances which

appeared to the auditor to require action under Clause 158. This Clause effects that intention.
Where an audit is conducted by an approved auditor and it appears to him that there is reasonable ground for believing that an item of account is contrary to law, or that there has been failure to account for any sum or loss due to misconduct, the approved auditor is under a duty to report the matter to the Secretary of State. This will enable an extraordinary audit to be directed at which the district auditor will be able to take action under Clause 158 in the same way as at an audit conducted by him in the ordinary way.
The group of Lords Amendments 222 to 232 provides comprehensively for audit of accounts which have been allocated to a private auditor who cannot, after all, act.
Under Clause 151(5) principal councils and the Common Council may decide that different accounts of the council shall be audited by different auditors. That Clause does not extend to appointments which fall to be made in the special situations arising under Clauses 161(4) and 161(8). Under Clause 161(4) a local authority must make an alternative appointment if the Secretary of State's approval to the council's initial choice of auditor is withheld. Under Clause 161(8) a local authority must make an alternative appointment if the approved auditor's appointment is terminated by death, cessation of qualification under Clause 161(2), by withdrawal of the Secretary of State's approval under Clause 161(6) or by mutual agreement between the auditor and the local authority. The purpose of these Amendments is to enable the authority to consider afresh how the relevant accounts should be audited.
Lords Amendments Nos. 227, 233 and 234 are drafting Amendments.
I am sorry to have wearied the House with this technical and boring exposition, but these Amendments are all tied up with the provisions relating to auditing and are somewhat complicated.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 165

INITIAL EXPENSES OF NEW AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 238, in page 118, line 11, after "quarter" insert
or such other fraction as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Lords Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 239.

Mr. Speed: These Lords amendments make two minor technical changes in Clause 165, which deals with arrangements for meeting the initial expenses incurred by the new authorities between their election in 1973 and their replacing the existing authorities in 1974. Subsections (1) and (2) of this Clause provide for the payment to the new authorities by existing rating authorities—county boroughs, boroughs and district councils—of an amount equal to a rate of a quarter of a new penny in the £.
The first Lords Amendment enables the Secretary of State by order to prescribe a different fraction of a new penny rate, and the second enables him either to make the same fraction applicable to all existing rating areas—county boroughs, boroughs and districts—or to lay down different fractions for different kinds of rating authorities. The second also states that any such order is to be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
Both the Lords Amendments provide a degree of flexibility which may be found desirable in practice. The quarter rate may prove inadequate, and if so it may be that the inadequacy would affect only some existing rating areas—for example, and by way of illustration only—areas which are to be included in metropolitan areas under the Bill. They are simple, non-controversial Amend-and give greater flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 166

EQUALISATION OF RATES

Lords Amendment: No. 240, in
Page 118, line 41, leave out from the beginning to "in" and insert "with the agreement of the council of every district

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Lords Amendment we can take also Lords Amendments Nos. 241 and 242.

Mr. Speed: Clause 166 provides for a rate equalisation scheme to be made in a metropolitan county by
the council of a metropolitan county acting jointly with the councils of the districts in the county".
A number of local authorities have sought confirmation that this means that all the authorities in a metropolitan county must be in complete agreement before a scheme can be made, and some suggested that the Clause should be amended to make the position absolutely clear. I remember that when I moved the Clause as a new Clause on Report I was under the impression—and gave an undertaking to that effect at that time; and I remember the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) responding on that occasion, and certainly it is still our legal view—that there is no doubt that the Clause as it stands is unambiguous in this respect.
Nevertheless, in the light of representations received from local authorities and hon. Members asking for an Amendment to make the matter clear, we have provided this one, the effect of which is to provide that schemes under the Clause shall be made by the council of a metropolitan county with the agreement of the council of every district in the county. It makes it clear beyond peradventure.
Under the Clause a rate equalisation scheme in a metropolitan county will remain in existence till all the authorities in the county agree to revoke or vary it. Under these Lords Amendments such a scheme would apply for one year only, and could be renewed only with agreement of all the authorities in the county. The Amendments are made at the suggestion of a number of local authorities.


There is nothing to prevent the authorities concerned from renewing a scheme from year to year, and one would expect that, in the majority of cases, this would happen. The Amendments stop an open-ended commitment which might be possible under the Clause as originally drafted.

Mr. Ian Percival: As these Amendments were made in response to a request from Southport I think I should be failing in my duty if I did not express our appreciation to the Government for recognising the observations offered, and for initiating these Amendments which, I have no doubt, improve the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to (Special Entry).

Schedule 13

AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FINANCE AND RATING

Lords Amendment: No. 251, in page 274, line 36, at end insert:
(iA) in a parish or community part of which is so subject, the part which is not so subject".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. It will be convenient if we also discuss Amendments Nos. 252 and 253.
These Amendments meet a deficiency in the existing definition of a rating district. A rating district is the smallest unit into which a valuation list can be divided for purposes of raising differential rates. Under the General Rate Act, 1967, a rating district outside Greater London was a parish within the meaning and for the purposes of the General Rate Act, 1925—that is, any area subject to separate or differential rating.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 13 to the Bill amends this definition to take account of changes to existing parishes both in England and Wales. Paragraph 9 as it stands, however, leaves a gap in the remaining part of a parish, or community in Wales, where part of it is subject to differential rating. These technical

Amendments, almost of a drafting nature, repair this omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 172

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 168 TO 171

Lords Amendment: No. 254, in page 12, line 30, leave out "prescribed body" and insert:
body prescribed for the purposes of those sections and".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Perhaps it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 255 and 256.
These Amendments explain the meaning of the prescribed bodies in Clause 172. A body may be prescribed for two reasons under the Clause: either as one to which the provisions of Clauses 168 to 170 refer—that is, payment for attendance, financial loss, travelling, and subsistence allowance—or as one on which the performance of duties can be regarded as approved duties. The purpose of the Amendments is to show that because a body is included in one set of prescribed bodies it cannot be excluded for that reason from prescription in the other set.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 174

GENERAL PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 257, in page 124, line 13, leave out "on and after 1st April 1974".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will perhaps be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 264, 265, 315, 317, 322, 326, 331, 332, 333, 341, 358, 359, 360, 362, 364, 365, 366 367, 368, 370, 372, 382, 419, 433, 434, 446, 447, 448, 467 and 483.
These are drafting incidentals which arise in relation to the subject of commencement, but they are separate from the new Clause with which we shall deal on Amendment No. 630, which is the main provision on commencement. These Amendments are incidental, not consequential on that Amendment because all they do is to take out a number of references to 1st April, 1974, in Clauses which, even if the new Clause were not accepted, will, under Clause 259, as it stands, commence on that date anyway. Therefore, the references are superfluous, whatever we may do later with Clause 259 or Amendment No. 630.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 175

PUBLIC HEALTH

Lords Amendment: No. 258, in page 125, line 31, leave out "sections 5 and" and insert "section".

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical, tidying up Amendment. It excludes Section 5 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, from the list of public health enactments in the Clause. It is necessitated by the fact that the Bill gives power to provide public conveniences to authorities which will not bear the main burden of responsibility under the general run of public health enactments.
All local authorities empowered to provide public conveniences remain under a duty to provide for the needs of the disabled. The effect of the 1970 Act is undiminished.
This Amendment deletes the reference to Section 5 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, from Clause 175(3)(k). Clause 175 defines the local authorities for the purposes of the Public Health Acts and other enactments including, in subsection (3)(k), Sections 5 and 6 of the 1970 Act. Those local authorities are generally to be the district councils and the London borough councils.
This definition is appropriate for Section 6 of the 1970 Act, which is a regulatory power in relation to public conveniences at certain premises open to the public. It is, however, inappropriate to refer here to Section 5, which imposes duties on all local authorities providing public conveniences; county councils, the Greater London Council and parish councils, as well as district councils and London borough councils, will, by virtue of paragraph 9 of Schedule 14, have such powers.
The deletion of the reference to Section 5 ensures that the local authorities for the purposes of that section will be those within the definition in Clause 256—that is, county councils, the Greater London Council, district councils, London borough councils and parish and community councils.
This is a small, technical and, I hope, uncontroversial Amendment.

Mr. George Thomas: I have been hanging on the Under-Secretary's words, and doing my best to keep up with him. Will he be kind enough to explain to me, in my little Welsh approach to the question, whether what he said amounts to the fact that local authorities will not avoid their responsibilities to disabled people as a result of our leaving out the Section, and that he is adding powers to certain authorities?

Mr. Speed: That is correct. As I said, all local authorities empowered to provide public conveniences remain under a duty to provide for the needs of the disabled. The effect of the excellent 1970 Act is undiminished.

Question put and agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Grahm Page.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

HOUSING, ROTHER VALLEY

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Some hon. Members might feel that Rother Valley has comparatively little to complain about. Local authorities in my constituency have been carrying out their responsibilities very successfully for a long time. There are no lengthy housing waiting lists, and the slum clearance problem is largely resolved. Nor is there any acute shortage of land. Indeed, in my constituency a large number of people from neighbouring areas have been accommodated in new housing estates. This presents problems of establishing character and relationships in the expanded villages, but they are not problems which Parliament can act directly to resolve at this stage. But we face serious problems, many of which reflect our national needs. I shall try to cover some in my speech. As there is quite a lot to say, I trust that the Minister will forgive me if I travel quickly.
My area has felt the pain of severe inflation and, most of all, it has hurt the younger couples seeking their own houses, many of whom have had unpleasant experiences. I refer to the case of Mr. John Shaw and his fiancée, Miss Evans. Their case was brought to my notice by Mr. Brian Longworth, an able and experienced reporter of the South Yorkshire Times. Miss Evans opened her local paper one day and saw an advertisement for an older house in the Kiveton Park area at a price of £2,700. She immediately telephoned the estate agents, Messrs. Portfield and Garratt, of Sheffield, to express her interest in purchasing this house. She made an appointment to see the agent. On keeping that appointment both she and her fiancée were told that there had been another bid of £2,800 and were asked if they would like to offer another £100. They did so. They were then informed that this other bidder had offered £3,100, asked if they would like to bid more, and were told the other bidder was prepared to go up to £4,000. They declined, quite properly, to bid any higher price. The agent said that he was very sorry and would let them know should anything else turn up in their area.
Ten days later the same house was advertised in the local Press, due to cancellation, for £2,700. No one contacted my constituents. This seemed odd both to the local reporter and to myself, and I wrote to Mr. Coyle, the estate agent.
Some weeks elapsed and I had not received a reply, so I telephoned him and asked if his firm was a member of the National Association of Estate Agents. He told me that he did not think there was such a body and asked who I was. When I told him, he said he thought that that organisation had collapsed. I then reminded him that I had not received a reply to my letter, and this was promised. When it came it confirmed a good deal of what Miss Evans had told me, but did not refer to the fact that Miss Evans was the first to respond to the advertisement and it appeared critical of her speaking to the Press. I should make it clear that Mr. Longworth, the reporter, acted very properly and in the best traditions of responsible journalism. Indeed, nowadays one looks more and more to the responsible local weeklies for maintaining the best traditions of Press activity. I sent a second letter to Mr. Coyle. This has not yet been acknowledged.
It is not surprising that there is an increased demand for the licensing of estate agents and for the application of a professionally administered code of conduct. Sharks have to be dealt with. I hope the Government will urgently consider encouraging this development. Estate agents can too easily benefit excessively from rapid inflation. Perhaps this explains the increasing use of false actions, of houses being withdrawn at the top bid, that top bid being used as the basis for subsequent advertising.
Just as one can be critical of some estate agents, so some building contractors can be found at fault. F. P. Staveley, Ltd., has built many houses in my constituency. The houses may be very satisfactory, but some of my constituents have been much aggrieved in recent months. Mr. Wasteney of Aston ordered a house in April and was told that the price might shortly be increased by about £100. On 15th May this young social worker was told that there would be a 15 per cent. Increase, £610, and that another increase


would be likely three months later. Reference was made to the building workers' wage claim, which was some three months away.
When I took up the case I made a mild and responsible public statement and also wrote to the Minister. Then Mr. Wasteney received a letter from the managing director of this firm, which I regard as extremely bullying in tone, asking for a reply very quickly, or there would be an assumption that he no longer wished to purchase this house. I found this action rather offensive, if it did not quite tread on the dangerous ground of interfering with my constituent's rights to approach his Member of Parliament.
To confirm Mr. Wasteney's experience, a Mr. and Mrs. Bland, my constituents, reserved a plot from Staveleys on 10th February. They were told that there would be an increase of about 5 per cent. In fact, they learned next of a rise of £150, but were promised, or there was a suggestion at least, that there would be a fixed price offered in June. They were then told of an increase of £610 in June and that another increase would apply in October. By then, Mr. and Mrs. Bland had sold their previous house and had moved to live with relatives, so that their very young child should not have to transfer schools. They now watched prices rocket faster than they could save. This must have been a frequent and costly experience during 1972 for many young couples.
I was then informed of another case in which Staveleys tried to wriggle out of what I considered to be a fixed price contract. I gave suitable advice to my constituent in this case. If this firm conducts itself in future as it has done recently, I hope that it will not lay another brick in my constituency.
Now, another case has cropped up, involving a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is trying to purchase a house in my constituency. The buyer is supposed to be protected by a National House-Building Registration Council contract. In practice, this appears much less effective than may be supposed. Clause 14 of the contract states that the builder can charge a net increase where the cost of materials and labour rise.
The builders, Dernie and Bell, Sons and Co. Ltd., of Worksop, have asked for an increase of over 22 per cent., but will not explain how that increase is composed. This is not in accordance with the spirit at least of the NHBRC's arrangements. The Government should intervene and insist that this scheme should be properly and fully implemented. Some sharp and doubtful practice might then be stopped.
Inflation has affected not only the private house buyer but the local authorities as well. The able and experienced councillors and officials of Rotherham rural district have been horrified by the fantastic increase in the cost of house improvements. We are moving forward with these schemes and we welcome the 75 per cent. improvement grants. Unfortunately, this extra concession is accompanied by a deadline operation, which reduces the local authorities' bargaining power. Therefore, it increases the cost of the improvements. In the Thrybergh-Dalton area of my constituency, many houses are being improved The first batch were arranged at a cost of £1,590 in September, 1971. The next batch, in March this year, were to cost £2,315. By the summer, this price had risen to £3,036, and the latest lowest tender received by the rural district council for similar houses is about £3,900.
That is a shocking rate of increase. The council will fight to reduce these figures, but the effect of the deadline is regrettable, and reduces the council's capacity. I would therefore ask the Minister to take urgent steps to remove that deadline before further public money is thrown away.
Indeed, if we do not remove the deadline, it will be clear that it would have been cheaper to have pulled the houses down and replaced them rather than spend these vast sums on providing unnecessary profits and great anxiety for the council.
The same council and many others, including Maltby in my constituency, has been caused grave embarrassment by the ridiculously unreal attitude where the Government's building cost yardstick is concerned.
In Swallownest the Rotherham Rural District Council plans to build 56 bungalows and a warden's house, but the lowest tender is greater than the Government's


yardstick. This is preventing the council from making progress. It will make it impossible for the council to live up to its splendid record in providing for its older people and in the end it will cost a good deal more money. In Maltby, the authority has a splendid record and the problems of slum clearance and general need are just about resolved. The council decided that its current waiting list could be cleared by the building programme now planned. Therefore, the council decided to sell council houses. However, that co-operative response is receiving cavalier treatment from the Ministry, because the building programme, upon which the whole strategy of the council depends, is now threatened as the Government will not allow it to build as the tender is slightly above the Government yardstick. That yardstick needs to be amended very urgently.
One or two other changes need to be made. I am unhappy about the operation of fair rents in my constituency. We know that there is the unjust and inflationary effect upon the public sector, but there are areas of the private sector where the effect is disadvantageous. In one parish a London property company bought some old houses for about £400. It has spent about £1,000 in improving them. It has received a 75 per cent. grant. The total investment in each of those houses is about £1,400 or £1,500, but public funds have provided over half the value of that investment. However, the fair rent ignores the public contribution and the tenant has to pay twice, as a tax payer and as a tenant. It seems that that is unjust.
In the Wickersley and Becks area of my constituency, there are hundreds of houses which were built by a local man in about 1931. Soon after my election I discovered that fair rents were being registered for these houses whilst at the same time the owner was receiving a subsidy under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1924. I also discovered that these houses were not to be included in the fair rent scheme. Registration of those rents was then cancelled. However, the day after the 40 years of subsidy have ended, the fair rents can be re-registered, and once again the public element in the investment which those houses represent is entirely ignored. That seems to be unjust

and it rankles among hundreds of tenants in my constituency.
We have our problems in the Rother Valley, and they are not eased by firms which believe that the public should act as the silent goose which must lay ever larger golden eggs. We still have some old houses, bad landlords and bad agents. I wrote courteously enough to a firm of solicitors in Sheffield about the need to repair an old house at Fence. That letter has not been acknowledged. However, fortunately I can rely on the vigilance and consideration of my local council, which will take action to resolve that matter.
Unfortunately, councils cannot prevent inflation. The young couples who have bought their houses will have to suffer the consequences of inflation for a long time. That suffering might assist their beneficiaries, but they face many years of hard domestic struggle as the mortgage dominates their lives. One of the Government back benchers in the Housing Finance Bill Committee suggested that that struggle was good for the soul and that somehow one's character was ennobled. I do not believe that hair shirts should be fashionable. Self flagellation should have departed from the British scene many years ago.
Those who strained to buy their house were caused a little strain by the recent increase in the building societies' interest rates, and they are anxious about the future, about the possibility that those interest rates can soon become even more vicious. I am anxious about the suggestion that interest rates in Europe are higher than those here. If economic harmonisation occurs, that might exercise an upward influence on interest rates in this country. In a constituency like mine where wages are below the national average, an increase in interest rates could lead to personal calamities. I hope that I shall receive an assurance that that will not be allowed to happen.
I have been critical of the Government and I realise that I have covered a wide range of housing matters. It is proper for me to say that I do not hold the Under-Secretary of State personally responsible for all these problems, many of which occurred or commenced before he took office in the spring. I know that the hon. Gentleman has showed some sympathy for some of the problems which I have presented to the Ministry,


although I have not had many satisfactory answers. However, I am sure that he will agree with me that the matters raised are serious and that his is not an unreasonable detention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to provide hopes and assurances which will be of real and relevant value to Rother Valley.

11.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am sure that the House will join in acknowledging the deep personal interest which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) shows not only in the housing problems of his own constituency but in the wider aspects of housing. This is indicated clearly tonight by the number and range of the points he has raised. I will do my best in the time available to deal with them, but he knows that if there are any points outstanding I will certainly be prepared to discuss them or to write to him about them.
Let me first take the hon. Member's remarks about estate agents. This is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has, I know, had representations from various sources about the registration of estate agents. I am sure that he will have taken particular note of what the hon. Member has said on this subject tonight.
Gazumping is a matter which concerns me very closely, and particularly its effect on younger couples. We all sympathise with those who have been asked for a higher price after making a decision to buy, and I certainly hope that the hon. Member's constituents have been or will be able to obtain a suitable house. I have always felt, too, that in spite of the publicity rightly given to the bad cases, most transactions have gone through in an agreeable way. The best practical answer to this kind of situation is to increase the supply of houses for sale, and I believe that this is happening. Certainly the Government have brought about a very substantial increase in the supply of new houses, with 43 per cent. more private houses started in the first half of 1972 as compared with the first half of 1971.
As to the general procedural problem about the position of buyers and sellers of houses between the provisional agree-

ment of price and the exchange of binding contracts, the House will know that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has referred the conveyancing aspect to the Law Commission to see whether it can suggest some change in law or practice which would improve the situation. The Commission's reported is awaited.
The hon. Member referred to a problem which his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) wished should be raised. I am sorry to hear of the difficulty of the hon. Member's constituents with regard to this NHBRC contract. From my own experience, I know that the National House-Building Registration Council is most helpful in dealing with problems that arise under these agreements, and that as far as is legally possible it will do all it can to help.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On past occasions, the Council has said that it will not take part in any dispute on price. Could the Minister not look at one aspect of the contract where the increase in price should be broken down? Builders refuse to break down the reasons for increase in price with regard to materials and labour.

Mr. Eyre: In the main, that involves arrangements between vendor and purchaser, but I will certainly ask the Council to look critically at the aspect to which the hon. Member refers.
I am aware that the rising cost of house improvement work both in the hon. Member's constituency and elsewhere in the country has been causing concern. I share this concern. Indeed, it was because of representations made on this point by both local authorities and builders that my right hon. Friend announced on 21st April that the provisions of the Housing Act, 1971, which give higher rates of improvement grants and Government contributions to local authorities in the assisted areas, were to be extended by one year to 23rd June, 1974. I believe that this has helped to take the immediate heat out of the situation and to assist in stabilising prices.
When my right hon. Friend made the announcement on 21st April of the year's extension, he stressed that this was a once-for-all extension and he emphasised the necessity for all concerned to press


ahead as fast as possible if the maximum advantage were to be derived from the increased grants.
The hon. Member may have it in mind that the grant limits are no longer high enough and that, given the recent increases in building costs, local authorities in particular ought to qualify for a higher maximum Government contribution towards the cost of improving council houses. I know that there are particular difficulties in the case of the Whinney Hill improvements, on which my officials and the local authority have had several useful discussions. My officials will continue to be available to the local authority if it thinks it would be helpful.
The hon. Gentleman referred to fair rents for property which has been improved and after improvement grant has been paid. I believe that he is in danger of confusing two separate matters. First, the payment of grant will ensure that the accommodation is brought up to good standard. I am sure he is not suggesting that tenants should continue to live in unsatisfactory accommodation. As to the rent which a tenant should pay, the principle is the fair rent, whether the accommodation has been improved or not, and, of course, any tenants who cannot afford it can get a rent rebate or allowance.
The hon. Gentleman made a further point about fair rents in respect of houses which have had subsidy under the Housing Act, 1924. He has questioned this before and his point has been fully considered. The position is that, once subsidy has ceased, any condition as to the rent ceases to have effect and an application for the registration of a fair rent will be entertained in the usual way. I am sure that this is right.
The purpose of the fair rent is to see that resources are available for the continued maintenance of the house in good order and it is in the interests of the tenant that this should be so. In these circumstances, I feel that the present situation in the fair interests of tenant and landlord is correct and right.
In dealing with interest rates the hon. Gentleman raised a point of wider economic implications. He expressed concern about interest rates for house purchase in relation to the EEC. As he understands,

interest rates for house purchase will continue to depend in our own domestic market on the general level of interest rates. The vast majority of house purchasers have always relied on the building societies for advances, and I am sure that this will continue. Building societies raise the funds they make available to borrowers largely from individual investors and, of course, have to pay an appropriate rate of interest. The rate they charge borrowers on mortgage advances is set accordingly.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter and, as I have said, if there is continuing difficulty in a practical respect in which I can help I shall be only too glad to do so. I should like him to see the perspective of matters in his region. As he fairly acknowledged, great progress is being made in dealing with many of these problems.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman has not touched on the question which so largely concerns our progress—the question of the building costs yardstick.

Mr. Eyre: I apologise for omitting that point. The hon. Gentleman asked, by implication, why the yardstick has not been increased to take account of recent wage settlements. The fact is that builders have known for some considerable time now that there was likely to be an increase in wages in the industry. And, since all tenders are forward looking they have, during the same period, had to make some allowance for this—on the basis of their best commercial judgment—in their tender prices. Similarly, the cost yardstick—which is continuously monitored against tenders coming in, and which was last increased in May of this year—has taken some account of the effect of the likely increase in wages.
It remains to be seen, however, exactly what effect the wage settlement will have on tender prices. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is watching the situation closely the yardstick is kept under continuous review.
I appreciate the importance of this on a practical basis and I assure the hon. Gentleman that great care and consideration are being given to this matter. As I think he will acknowledge, there has been a great improvement in housing conditions in his region. I acknowledge,


of course, that there is much to be done. We would like to see more private development taking place to match the needs particularly of the young couples to whom the hon. Member referred.
There is still much work to be done in the continuing improvement of older houses and slum clearance and building for those who are in need of housing for rent. All these present continuing major problems and the Government are glad that by their policies—and I stress the benefit that will come under the Housing Finance Act in due course—resources will be channelled to help the authorities in need in dealing with the problems of slum clearance and building houses to rent where there is true need.
The sum total of the Government's policies by way of improvement grants, by way of the extra resources which will be available to local authorities in need and by way of stimulating continuing development of private housing particularly to match the requirements of young couples, will bring about a considerable social improvement in the region. Nevertheless, I concede that the hon. Member has the right to bring forward strongly any difficulties and I promise him that the Department will do everything in its power to assist in coping with those problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.